Renting a Plane and Having Someone Else Pay For It

[Slugger]

So if I flew but didn't log it, did I really fly?? Sorta like: If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?? haha

Well if he doesn't care about logging that hour, wouldn't he technically not be receiving flight time since he didn't log it?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Well if he doesn't care about logging that hour, wouldn't he technically not be receiving flight time since he didn't log it?

Doesn't matter in the eyes of the FAA. You are only required to log for currency. Flight time equals compensation, whether you need it or not.

Just curious, if the purpose of the flight is aerial photography, does it still matter who provides the aircraft?

 

[subpilot]

You all are missing the point that this is a personal friend and not a random person off the street. "Holding out" to the public does not apply when you are taking a personal friend or family member up, as long as not anyone with a buck becomes your "personal friend".

If you are a CFI then this is simply a discovery flight.

 

[tgrayson]

"Holding out" to the public does not apply

Holding out or not isn't relevant to the legality of this operation. Not all "for hire" operations involve holding out.

 

[Xcaliber]

In regard to the original post:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/1990/Ferris.pdf

Replace "company" with "friend" (as far as I know, they are the same in the eyes of the FAA).

 

[Mike H]

You all are missing the point that this is a personal friend and not a random person off the street. "Holding out" to the public does not apply when you are taking a personal friend or family member up, as long as not anyone with a buck becomes your "personal friend".

Exactly right, and that's the key to the issue.

True, not all for-hire operations involve holding out (offering services to the public), but holding out IS the issue here.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

True, not all for-hire operations involve holding out (offering services to the public), but holding out IS the issue here.

It isn't though. The issue is whether procuring the aircraft causes it to be a part 135 or part 136 operation. For that to happen, the pilot must be receiving compensation. The broad interpretation of all flight time equals compensation thus comes into play.

The real crux of the question is "Must any pilot always pay a pro-rata share of the cost of an aircraft for it not to be a commercial operation?"

I tell you what, I'm going to ask someone from the FSDO here if I should become a part 136 operator for purposes of taking my friend up for 1/2 an hour to take some pictures of the beach, where I am not compensated, and my buddy pays more than a pro-rata share of the 50 bucks the airplane cost to rent. I'm pretty sure this falls into the "Don't ask, don't tell" category.

Having your buddy sign the charge slip for the plane makes it 100% legal, so long as he chose the aircraft and time by himself. Kind of a messed up rule though, since only a commercial pilot would know that it has to happen that way, and the commercial pilot can't give you advice as to where and how to book the aircraft so as to make it legal.

Or call the flight "aerial photography," you part 119 gives you an exemption.

On an unrelated point, charging your buddy is kind of a dick thing to do. Pay for the flight and let him buy you dinner or something.

 

[tgrayson]

holding out IS the issue here..

No, it isn't. The issue is that the OP wants to carry passengers for hire. That requires a 135 certificate, a 121 certificate, a 125 certificate, or meeting the requirements of 91.147 for an air tour, which is an exemption in Part 119.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

No, it isn't. The issue is that the OP wants to carry passengers for hire. That requires a 135 certificate, a 121 certificate, a 125 certificate, or meeting the requirements of 91.147 for an air tour, which is an exemption in Part 119.

FYI, the 119.1 exceptions:

1) Student instruction;
[(2) Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted after September 11, 2007, in an airplane or helicopter having a standard airworthiness certificate and passenger-seat configuration of 30 seats or fewer and a maximum payload capacity of 7,500 pounds or less that begin and end at the same airport, and are conducted within a 25-statute mile radius of that airport, in compliance with the Letter of Authorization issued under Sec. 91.147 of this chapter. For nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in accordance with part 136, subpart B of this chapter, National Parks Air Tour Management, the requirements of part 119 of
this chapter apply unless excepted in Sec. 136.37(g)(2). For Nonstop Commercial Air Tours conducted in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona, the requirements of SFAR 50-2, part 93, subpart U, and part 119 of this chapter, as applicable, apply.]
(3) Ferry or training flights;
(4) Aerial work operations, including -
(i) Crop dusting, seeding, spraying, and bird chasing;
(ii) Banner towing;
(iii) Aerial photography or survey;
(iv) Fire fighting;
(v) Helicopter operations in construction or repair work (but it does apply to transportation to and from the site of operations); and
(vi) Powerline or pipeline patrol;
(5) Sightseeing flights conducted in hot air balloons;
(6) Nonstop flights conducted within a 25-statute-mile radius of the airport of takeoff carrying persons or objects for the purpose of conducting intentional parachute operations;

 

[Mike H]

Beagle, a cursory look at part 135 doesn't show me anything one way or the other about procuring the aircraft. Maybe there's something I'm not seeing or maybe I'm misunderstanding your point.

As far as 91.147, 121 & 135, there would still seem to require an offer of services to the public. Otherwise the whole concept of holding out is meaningless. If it has no meaning, why even have it in the regulations?

 

[Mike H]

The issue is that the OP wants to carry passengers for hire. .

No, you're wrong. The OP wants to carry A FRIEND and have the friend pay for the airplane. He's talking "apples" and you're answering "snowtires"

 

[tgrayson]

No, you're wrong. The OP wants to carry A FRIEND and have the friend pay for the airplane. He's talking "apples" and you're answering "snowtires"

The relationship between the passenger and the pilot is irrelevant. Show me the reg that says it's ok to fly a friend for hire, but not a stranger.

 

[ahsmatt7]

For 1, I think the FAA would look at who is PIC (who logged the flight). if the renter (PPL) logged it (I'm also assuming something like a 172), and they paid, no biggy. if the commercial pilot logged it, and the PPL paid, then it'd be illegal. If both logged it, well, then you've got other problems

I don't really think it's that hard. Who procured the aircraft? Who's flying the aircraft? If they're the same person/company, you've got issues. If not, you're good to go. I know some people have tried setting up two companies, with the wife's company as owner of the airplane, and the husband's company as employer of the pilots, but that doesn't fly (pardon the pun). Don't try to cheat the system, and you'll be ok.

As for scenario 2, that'd be legal because flight instruction is specifically exempted in 119.1, whereas the op's question is not. Now, getting the aircraft operator and insurance to agree to that scenario, that's another issue.

I see now, thanks for clearing it all up.

 

[tgrayson]

As far as 91.147, 121 & 135, there would still seem to require an offer of services to the public. Otherwise the whole concept of holding out is meaningless. If it has no meaning, why even have it in the regulations?

Because it determines which set of regulations applies:

§ 119.23 Operators engaged in passenger-carrying operations, cargo operations, or both with airplanes when common carriage is not involved.

(a) Each person who conducts operations when common carriage is not involved with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of 20 seats or more, excluding each crewmember seat, or a payload capacity of 6,000 pounds or more, shall, unless deviation authority is issued—
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements of part 125 of this chapter;
(2) Conduct its operations with those airplanes in accordance with the requirements of part 125 of this chapter; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.
(b) Each person who conducts noncommon carriage (except as provided in §91.501(b) of this chapter) or private carriage operations for compensation or hire with airplanes having a passenger-seat configuration of less than 20 seats, excluding each crewmember seat, and a payload capacity of less than 6,000 pounds shall—
(1) Comply with the certification and operations specifications requirements in subpart C of this part;
(2) Conduct those operations in accordance with the requirements of part 135 of this chapter, except for those requirements applicable only to commuter operations; and
(3) Be issued operations specifications in accordance with those requirements.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

As far as 91.147, 121 & 135, there would still seem to require an offer of services to the public. Otherwise the whole concept of holding out is meaningless. If it has no meaning, why even have it in the regulations?

Holding out just means a willingness to do so. The "friend" is also a member of the public. The issue is that once you provide an aircraft and a pilot, you are a "commercial operator" in the eyes of the FAA, and they've only made a few exceptions to that.

My personal opinion is that the whole pro-rata thing shouldn't apply to family members and close friends. In the case of young kids whose parents paid for their flight training, guess what? The kids are never paying a pro-rata share anyway. Think about that one - it would be illegal to fly with dad who is footing the bill, but fine with anyone off the street.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The relationship between the passenger and the pilot is irrelevant. Show me the reg that says it's ok to fly a friend for hire, but not a stranger.

Though it isn't anywhere in the regs, I think immediate family members get a de facto exemption here.

 

[Rosstafari]

...meanwhile, the OP and his friend went up in the plane, took their tour, and have decided to just keep their mouths shut about it.

 

[tgrayson]

Though it isn't anywhere in the regs, I think immediate family members get a de facto exemption here.

What is the basis for your thinking that?

In the case of young kids whose parents paid for their flight training, guess what? The kids are never paying a pro-rata share anyway. Think about that one - it would be illegal to fly with dad who is footing the bill, but fine with anyone off the street.

Not relevant. The dad isn't paying for air transportation, he's paying for instruction.

 

[subpilot]

Not relevant. The dad isn't paying for air transportation, he's paying for instruction.

I think he is refering to that flight after the kid earns his PPL and takes his dad up as his first passenger. Guess who paid for that flight. Should the FSDO take the white piece of paper away from the kid for this?

 

[drunkenbeagle]

...meanwhile, the OP and his friend went up in the plane, took their tour, and have decided to just keep their mouths shut about it.

Glider pilots share tows all the time, and I've never seen anyone split the cost of one pro-rata...

Then again, we get an exemption to part 136, and can do sightseeing flights part 91 with only a commercial pilot. With a PPL flying the towplane. Don't even need 100 hour inspections.