So we all know Part 61.113 but....

S

skymac

Well-Known Member
Ok, so Part 61.113

"

Sec. 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:
......
c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
......
"
So with this being stated, is it legal if I take a buddy up and he pays for half my flight, takes pictures from the flight, then sells them to individuals himself?

You can call it aerial photography on his end I guess but I'm not getting paid for the service. Only reason I want to do it is its helping me build time for a cheaper rate than normal, which we all love right. Typically the 172 rents for $100 and hour wet and I am willing to let him pay me $50 per hour as to not go over the less than half pro rata share. I could even say just take $45 from him to just be on the safe side.

I can't see a problem with doing this and its not like he is hiring me per say. I'm just renting the airplane outright fully and he would give me half the expenses, what he does with whatever he does is his deal right?
 
The problem is that you are not in furtherance of a business, but now that airplane is in furtherance of a business. So the aircraft is the primary means of earning income which makes it a commercial flight.

Are you licensed to conduct a commercial flight? No, you're not.

Basically here's how it works. If you don't try to screw with the regs, then the FAA won't screw with you. If you intentionally try to mess with the regs and find loopholes, the FAA will make sure they mess with you before they mess with changing the regs.
 
Another thing here that could get you hosed is common purpose--the purpose of the flight for you (timebuilding) is different from that of your pax (photography). The FAA's used that to bust people too.
 
OP, I love these reg translation threads cause they are fun to pick apart, but you left out some key info from the regs in your post which I attached below.

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) 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.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
Click to expand...

I would say the easiest violation is you're carrying a passenger.
 
it's the passenger's purpose more than that of the pilot that is the key. if the passenger is taking photos for sale (i.e. commercial purposes), that makes it very likely a commercial flight that requires a commercial pilot in my opinion.
 
See I see it being legal aswell and I don't think it would ever be seen as a problem. I'm not advertising the aircraft or my PPL, all he is doing is taking some pictures on a joy ride and possibly selling them down the road for his own good. I win as a timebuilder and he wins possibly aswell.

I need to send a email to a guy I know at the FSDO but I wanted to see what people are thinking of around here... I don't see how it would ever even come up unless an accident were to happen, and even then still...

Theres a large room for interpertation and the way I read them say, heres the rules... go for it, but don't screw up, if you do we have room to choke you.
 
I still think the commercial definitions of holding out, etc are cloudy. Just go get your commercial,

1) You will understand better what your allowed to do.

2) You can make money.
 
Even if you say you could possibly classify his intent as commercial, its no more then intent for me to timebuild as I'm doing it anyway, so the intent is split 50/50.

True I am carry a passenger but its for half operating expenses or less so there for it couldn't count as compensation or hire because that would be over 50%...

I'm asking the FSDO but its good to hear everyones thoughts, and will definatly post back with what I find.
 
skymac said:
Even if you say you could possibly classify his intent as commercial, its no more then intent for me to timebuild as I'm doing it anyway, so the intent is split 50/50.

True I am carry a passenger but its for half operating expenses or less so there for it couldn't count as compensation or hire because that would be over 50%...

I'm asking the FSDO but its good to hear everyones thoughts, and will definatly post back with what I find.
Click to expand...


If we look at the FAR's again it says:

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) 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.

(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
Click to expand...

It says with exception to B-H, you fall under B.

It is in connection with ANY business, because you and your buddy had discussed it before. That is the intent. The business is his commercial photography. The problem is you are carrying a passenger.


A good example of compliance with the above scenario. The Ohio State Highway Patrol has C172's and C182's. If you are an OSHP trooper you can get hired to fly there planes with a PPL. You can act as PIC and get paid flying an OSHP airplane because it is 1) only incidental to there operation and 2) you are not carrying passengers or property for hire.
 
ProudPilot said:
The problem is that you are not in furtherance of a business, but now that airplane is in furtherance of a business. So the aircraft is the primary means of earning income which makes it a commercial flight.

Are you licensed to conduct a commercial flight? No, you're not.

Basically here's how it works. If you don't try to screw with the regs, then the FAA won't screw with you. If you intentionally try to mess with the regs and find loopholes, the FAA will make sure they mess with you before they mess with changing the regs.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:
 
Mike H said:
it's the passenger's purpose more than that of the pilot that is the key. if the passenger is taking photos for sale (i.e. commercial purposes), that makes it very likely a commercial flight that requires a commercial pilot in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You nailed it. The photographer is there to take photos for resale. The pilot is not. No common purpose; just acting as a paid platform for a photography business. Based on the question, the pilot absolutely knows it's not a joyride, so there's no innocent violation.
 
If it is ever gray at all, you should err on the side of caution. Start making compromises now, and you are setting yourself up for a career of problems.
 
skymac said:
I don't see how it would ever even come up unless an accident were to happen, and even then still....
Click to expand...

These things have a nasty way of coming up.

Don't do it. Common purpose isn't there, and that's enough rope for the FAA to hang you, should they be interested in doing so.
 
skymac said:
Even if you say you could possibly classify his intent as commercial, its no more then intent for me to timebuild as I'm doing it anyway, so the intent is split 50/50.

True I am carry a passenger but its for half operating expenses or less so there for it couldn't count as compensation or hire because that would be over 50%...

I'm asking the FSDO but its good to hear everyones thoughts, and will definatly post back with what I find.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right about the intent being 50/50. Unfortunately, the FAA won't accept that. If you don't have common intent (or purpose) it falls outside of Private Pilot privileges. You're better off finding timebuilding ways that are legal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top