Private Pilot doing illegal charters

rframe said:
61.113(g)

There's an LOI on this from Nov 2010, to the Soaring Society of America.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I found the legal interpretation and the resultant letter from SSA.

Based on that interpretation, it would be interesting to ask for a legal opinion regarding compensation for private pilots involved in sky writing and banner towing.
 
Houston said:
Thanks. I found the legal interpretation and the resultant letter from SSA.

Based on that interpretation, it would be interesting to ask for a legal opinion regarding compensation for private pilots involved in sky writing and banner towing.
Click to expand...

I dont think there is any current legal basis to allow private pilots to be compensated for those operations, as the few exceptions listed in 61.113 are pretty explicit.
 
Houston said:
The "MYOB" mantra is the standard within certain segments of society. It's the standard among the felons incarcerated in our penitentiaries. It is also the common behavior in crime ridden areas. There are two fundamental reasons for that. The first is fear. Fear of reprisal from those who choose to conduct themselves in antisocial ways. That is a rational fear. The person who misbehaves is more than likely to be of the ilk that will continue misbehaving and may likely reprise against anyone who calls attention to their misbehavior. The second is what might be called a criminal commonality. An individual who is a rule breaker chooses to "MYOB" in the hope they will not be called to account for their rule breaking or antisocial behavior.

Sadly, there is also a third reason for "MYOB" that cuts across all segments of society. That is a lack of social consciousness. We've all seen the people who witness an accident and then drive on rather than stop. To them, arriving somewhere a few minutes early is more important than getting help for someone who may be hurt. To them, the fact an innocent driver may be charged for the accident is less important than a few minutes of their time. That is the kind of logic that leads some to conclude that they would say "hey Ma, maybe you should wait for the next one" rather than let their mother fly aboard an illegally operated aircraft, but they apply a "MYOB" logic when it is someone else's mother.

As this Memorial Day weekend approaches, it is a particularly proper time to take stock of our individual conduct. Are we the kind who have the courage and the social consciousness to be a positive force within society, or do we have a "MYOB" attitude.
Click to expand...

This.
 
I thought that even if you and your passenger pay pro rata share, its still "for hire" if the pilot doesn't have a common reason to goto the destination.

ie:
I can fly my friend from new york to LA paying pro rata for sight seeing or whatever
but if he happens to have a business meeting in LA or something then its for hire.


I could be wrong though.
 
There was an AOPA article in Nov 2011 that addressed some of these questions:

Pilot Counsel:

Private vs. commercial operations
By John S. Yodice
At AOPA’s Aviation Summit in Hartford, Connecticut, I was reminded that general aviation pilots still wrestle with who and what they can legally carry in their aircraft without running afoul of the commercial regulations. The question that caused the most consternation was whether a pilot flying incidental to his/her business or employment could legally carry other employees, customers, or passengers in connection with that business or employment. There is a relatively recent interpretation by the FAA Chief Counsel (2009-7) on that point.

Pilots understand that there is an important regulatory difference between “private” and “commercial” operations. The FAA regulates both for safety, but commercial operators have additional costly and burdensome regulation beyond the general operating and flight rules of FAR Part 91, and other rules. We all can easily recognize the classic private operation, which is a pilot flying his or her own aircraft (or a rented or borrowed aircraft) for his or her own purposes, specifically including carrying passengers. This is classically one within the privileges of a private pilot certificate (and may also be conducted by commercial and ATP pilots exercising the lesser “private” privileges implicitly included in their certificates). At the other end of the spectrum, we easily recognize the classic commercial operation such as those conducted by the airlines, air taxi operators, charter, et cetera, by those engaged in the business of carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

It is the gray area in between private and commercial operations that raises many questions. FAR 61.113 provides the general rule that “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.” The rule then goes on to permit some operations that might otherwise be considered commercial operations. Some familiar examples: A private pilot (or a commercial/ATP pilot exercising private privileges) may, under limited circumstances, share the expenses of a flight with his passengers (the pilot is technically receiving compensation even though it is only the passengers’ pro rata share of direct operating costs). A private pilot may carry passengers in a charitable airlift that technically involves “compensation or hire,” but to the benefit of the charity. Similarly, within the specific terms of the rule, search and location operations are permitted, as are the flights of an aircraft salesman, and towing a glider or ultralight.

What was discussed at Summit was the part of the rule that allows a pilot, for compensation or hire, to act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if “the flight is only incidental to that business or employment” and “the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.” Everyone understood that FAR 61.113 covers the pilot businessman and employee. But many balked at the FAA position that the pilot businessman/employee may not legally transport employees, customers, or other passengers in connection with that business or employment.

Unfortunately, the FAA chief counsel interpretation supports the FAA position. The interpretation addresses the scenario of a director of vehicle testing (not related to air transportation) who on occasion uses his aircraft, a Bellanca Super Viking, for transportation to business meetings. The questions addressed were whether the director could be reimbursed for the cost of this transportation, and to what extent he may be reimbursed if he also transports coworkers to these business meetings.

The FAA chief counsel opined that where the director only transported himself to the business meeting, the director may, under the “incidental” part of the rule, be compensated for the expense of the flight. That is the positive part of the interpretation. But the chief counsel, in considerably narrowing the interpretation, opined that the rule would not allow the director to seek reimbursement from his employer for transporting his colleagues to the meeting. According to the chief counsel, the rule only allows the director to use his private pilot certificate for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to the director’s employment and only if the director is not transporting other passengers or property. Thus, because the director is transporting people to the meeting, he may not seek reimbursement from his employer for this flight.

The interpretation says the “shared expense” would not apply because it only allows reimbursement from fellow passengers, not a third party, such as the employer. “You [the director] may only seek reimbursement for the operating expense of the flight from your passengers, provided you pay your own pro rata share of the operating expenses, and you all share a common purpose, such as attending the business meeting.”

I could agree with the interpretation if the sole reason the pilot was going on the trip was to transport his colleagues, and not for his own business or employment purpose in attending the meeting. Otherwise, I respectfully disagree. The pilot is only being reimbursed for the cost of his carriage. Carrying his colleagues does not add to the cost of the trip. I believe a more reasonable interpretation is that the colleagues are not being carried “for compensation or hire” on this common-business-purpose flight, and the “incidental” exception should apply.
 
Nihon_Ni said:
There was an AOPA article in Nov 2011 that addressed some of these questions:

Pilot Counsel:

Private vs. commercial operations
By John S. Yodice
At AOPA’s Aviation Summit in Hartford, Connecticut, I was reminded that general aviation pilots still wrestle with who and what they can legally carry in their aircraft without running afoul of the commercial regulations. The question that caused the most consternation was whether a pilot flying incidental to his/her business or employment could legally carry other employees, customers, or passengers in connection with that business or employment. There is a relatively recent interpretation by the FAA Chief Counsel (2009-7) on that point.

Pilots understand that there is an important regulatory difference between “private” and “commercial” operations. The FAA regulates both for safety, but commercial operators have additional costly and burdensome regulation beyond the general operating and flight rules of FAR Part 91, and other rules. We all can easily recognize the classic private operation, which is a pilot flying his or her own aircraft (or a rented or borrowed aircraft) for his or her own purposes, specifically including carrying passengers. This is classically one within the privileges of a private pilot certificate (and may also be conducted by commercial and ATP pilots exercising the lesser “private” privileges implicitly included in their certificates). At the other end of the spectrum, we easily recognize the classic commercial operation such as those conducted by the airlines, air taxi operators, charter, et cetera, by those engaged in the business of carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

It is the gray area in between private and commercial operations that raises many questions. FAR 61.113 provides the general rule that “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.” The rule then goes on to permit some operations that might otherwise be considered commercial operations. Some familiar examples: A private pilot (or a commercial/ATP pilot exercising private privileges) may, under limited circumstances, share the expenses of a flight with his passengers (the pilot is technically receiving compensation even though it is only the passengers’ pro rata share of direct operating costs). A private pilot may carry passengers in a charitable airlift that technically involves “compensation or hire,” but to the benefit of the charity. Similarly, within the specific terms of the rule, search and location operations are permitted, as are the flights of an aircraft salesman, and towing a glider or ultralight.

What was discussed at Summit was the part of the rule that allows a pilot, for compensation or hire, to act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if “the flight is only incidental to that business or employment” and “the aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.” Everyone understood that FAR 61.113 covers the pilot businessman and employee. But many balked at the FAA position that the pilot businessman/employee may not legally transport employees, customers, or other passengers in connection with that business or employment.

Unfortunately, the FAA chief counsel interpretation supports the FAA position. The interpretation addresses the scenario of a director of vehicle testing (not related to air transportation) who on occasion uses his aircraft, a Bellanca Super Viking, for transportation to business meetings. The questions addressed were whether the director could be reimbursed for the cost of this transportation, and to what extent he may be reimbursed if he also transports coworkers to these business meetings.

The FAA chief counsel opined that where the director only transported himself to the business meeting, the director may, under the “incidental” part of the rule, be compensated for the expense of the flight. That is the positive part of the interpretation. But the chief counsel, in considerably narrowing the interpretation, opined that the rule would not allow the director to seek reimbursement from his employer for transporting his colleagues to the meeting. According to the chief counsel, the rule only allows the director to use his private pilot certificate for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to the director’s employment and only if the director is not transporting other passengers or property. Thus, because the director is transporting people to the meeting, he may not seek reimbursement from his employer for this flight.

The interpretation says the “shared expense” would not apply because it only allows reimbursement from fellow passengers, not a third party, such as the employer. “You [the director] may only seek reimbursement for the operating expense of the flight from your passengers, provided you pay your own pro rata share of the operating expenses, and you all share a common purpose, such as attending the business meeting.”

I could agree with the interpretation if the sole reason the pilot was going on the trip was to transport his colleagues, and not for his own business or employment purpose in attending the meeting. Otherwise, I respectfully disagree. The pilot is only being reimbursed for the cost of his carriage. Carrying his colleagues does not add to the cost of the trip. I believe a more reasonable interpretation is that the colleagues are not being carried “for compensation or hire” on this common-business-purpose flight, and the “incidental” exception should apply.
Click to expand...
Of course, the much more reasonable thing to do would be to merely go out and obtain a commercial certificate for this operation. Your insurance would be cheaper too.

(You can also be compensated or hired, for compensation or hire.)
 
matthew said:
I thought that even if you and your passenger pay pro rata share, its still "for hire" if the pilot doesn't have a common reason to goto the destination.

ie:
I can fly my friend from new york to LA paying pro rata for sight seeing or whatever
but if he happens to have a business meeting in LA or something then its for hire.


I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
You're not wrong. You're right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top