This can't be legal-Free Flight Time

and don't forget a couple times a year the owner of the flight school lets people fly the planes out to breakfast just for the price of the gas.
In addition has let people that could not pay for their ratings finish and pay later.
AND has helped bunches of people obtain flying jobs in the 23 years he has been in Rochester.
I MEAN WHAT A SCUMBAG!!!! Lets shut this guy down NOW!
 
Banner Express said:
and don't forget a couple times a year the owner of the flight school lets people fly the planes out to breakfast just for the price of the gas.
In addition has let people that could not pay for their ratings finish and pay later.
AND has helped bunches of people obtain flying jobs in the 23 years he has been in Rochester.
I MEAN WHAT A SCUMBAG!!!! Lets shut this guy down NOW!
Click to expand...

Again, "this guy" = you. We all know it. Just admit it.
 
Banner Express said:
and don't forget a couple times a year the owner of the flight school lets people fly the planes out to breakfast just for the price of the gas.
In addition has let people that could not pay for their ratings finish and pay later.
AND has helped bunches of people obtain flying jobs in the 23 years he has been in Rochester.
I MEAN WHAT A SCUMBAG!!!! Lets shut this guy down NOW!
Click to expand...
Only one person has called you a scumbag. I think you are just ignorant of the law. If you offered this same service, but in a car, do you think anyone would do it for free? Probably not, unless they owe you a favor. The fact that people volunteer to do it because it involves flying an airplane means you are compensating them with flight time. I would suggest you at least call your insurance company to see what they think.
 
Banner Express said:
Compensation for what is the question?
He was not asked to do anything - an offer of a free flight was made to anyone that wanted it.
Click to expand...

And what was the purpose for the flight? Is the purpose solely for the private pilot's private enjoyment, incidental to his business travel, or part of a charitable airlift?

For what purpose is the pilot receiving compensation in the form of free flight time?

Note that the regulation specifies 'compensation' OR 'hire'. In this case, the FAA would say that this is compensation (free flight time) AND hire (company needs something done, company seeks a pilot) under the definitions that the FAA has quite firmly stuck to.

Scumbag? No. On the wrong side of 14 CFR? Firmly, in my opinion.

Once a month the flight school puts on a free dinner at its hangar flying - open to anyone of the Rochester Aviation community - I suppose the guy should start charging for that too - would not want it considered compensation for showing up and talking about airplanes.
Click to expand...

I read a lot of hurt here. I think the people who are maligning the intent of this are wrong, but as per the law, it's not legal.

Kinda like @MidlifeFlyer said, moral versus legal.

~Fox
 
Recall that this entire setup is adding economic value to a service you are offering. If you were just offering free flight time ("You're my buddy. I'll let you fly my Bonanza for free"), then, no, it's not compensation - it's a gift. That isn't the case here. It's "furthering a business".

EDIT: Acrofox posted as I was writing this. What he said ... :)
 
Banner Express said:
and don't forget a couple times a year the owner of the flight school lets people fly the planes out to breakfast just for the price of the gas.
In addition has let people that could not pay for their ratings finish and pay later.
AND has helped bunches of people obtain flying jobs in the 23 years he has been in Rochester.
I MEAN WHAT A SCUMBAG!!!! Lets shut this guy down NOW!
Click to expand...

Sounds like an awesome operation, and a flight school that does a lot of good.

Just be careful with the law.

-Fox
 
Dude, I'm not the one calling out names, or calling for a shut down.

I just posted a question on a internet form to have a discussion, seeing the FARs have a lot of gray areas. My concern is only for private pilots that don't know enough to question this, I know when I was a ppl I wouldn't have thought twice about the legality of such flight. We can argue this till we are blue in the face but we don't make the ultimate decisions.
 
Champcar said:
Dude, I'm not the one calling out names, or calling for a shut down.

I just posted a question on a internet form to have a discussion, seeing the FARs have a lot of gray areas. My concern is only for private pilots that don't know enough to question this, I know when I was a ppl I wouldn't have thought twice about the legality of such flight. We can argue this till we are blue in the face but we don't make the ultimate decisions.
Click to expand...
Well then why not man up and call the owner directly instead of hiding behind the Internet ????
 
Sidebar:

Using the phrase "hiding behind the Internet" makes the speaker sound crotchety and old. For most people, their identity on the internet is linked with—and often just as important as—their 'real life' identity. It's part of their identity and not something they're 'hiding behind'.

I, for one, am more me on the internet than in person.

@Banner Express – I think the OP wasn't trying to start a fight—I think they were legitimately doubtful of a practice that they perceived as potentially unlawful and were soliciting third-party opinions on the subject.

-Fox
 
Banner Express said:
Well then why not man up and call the owner directly instead of hiding behind the Internet ????
Click to expand...
No offense but I learned a long time ago to not argue with flight school owners. Been there done that and your aggressiveness makes the decision easy. I have nothing to lose of gain out of this, again I wanted to confirm my suspicion through a third party (the forum).

The KROC community enjoys what you do for a otherwise lackluster aviation community. That is not in question or the intention of the question posed. Don't lump me in with the ones taking it a step too far.
 
Acrofox said:
Sidebar:

Using the phrase "hiding behind the Internet" makes the speaker sound crotchety and old. For most people, their identity on the internet is linked with—and often just as important as—their 'real life' identity. It's part of their identity and not something they're 'hiding behind'.

I, for one, am more me on the internet than in person.

@Banner Express – I think the OP wasn't trying to start a fight—I think they were legitimately doubtful of a practice that they perceived as potentially unlawful and were soliciting third-party opinions on the subject.

-Fox
Click to expand...
Well then why not call the owner to let him know your concerned.
 
Banner Express said:
Well then why not call the owner to let him know your concerned.
Click to expand...

If it were me, I would do that... but only after figuring out if it was actually improper. Especially if that person appears to genuinely have the best interests of the aviation community at heart.

I certainly wouldn't "name and shame", and the original poster didn't. If the original poster hadn't anonymized the original post, it would be a different story.

I'm not saying that the approach was right or wrong...and from my perspective it sounds like an honest mistake on behalf of an otherwise awesome flight school owner. I don't know, and it's not my place to judge. There's only been one person calling names here that I've seen, and that is the only person with whom I firmly differ.

I don't think confrontation is in anyone's best interest, in this case. Do good, try to stay legal, try to make money... it's aviation, and all the rest is gravy.

Ignore the name-callers unless you know you deserve it.

-Fox
 
First, it took two seconds of googling to find a recent Letter of Interpretation from the FAA Office of the Chief Counsel regarding flight time as "compensation."
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2013/Howell-PatriotsJetTeam - (2013) Legal Interpretation.pdf

Here is the relevant part:

The FAA has a long-standing policy for defining compensation in very broad terms. See
Harrington Interpretation; see also Legal Interpretation to Joseph A. Kirwan (May 27,2005)
(defining "compensation" as "the receipt of anything of value"). Any reimbursement of
expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc., if conditioned on the pilot operating
the aircraft) is compensation. Id. Additionally, the logging of flight time is compensation if
the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft. Id. The Harrington
Interpretation provides a detailed analysis of whether receipt of lodging, transportation, and
meals is compensation, which is the touchstone of your inquiry...
Click to expand...

The LOI goes on to talking about how the Patriots demonstration team is receiving compensation from the CAF in the form of free food, lodging or amenities even though they're performing at an airshow FOR FREE. It sucks and I think many of the LOIs over the last 20 years are destroying the spirit of general aviation, but this is the world we live in and have to deal with as pilots.

@Banner Express the FAA can and has read these forums. @Champcar censored the name of your business so he could ask about the legality of the practice in a hypothetical way without damaging you or your business. I urge you to use the "edit" feature and remove the name of your business from all your posts in this thread.

He was not asked to do anything - an offer of a free flight was made to anyone that wanted it.
It was supposed to be a nice perk for any of the _________Air Center customers.
No "SCUMBAG" intentions of trying to get out of paying someone for the flight.
Maybe you negative responders should look at it from a different perspective. NOBODY was trying to cheat anyone out of anything!
And no there is no additional cost to the customer receiving maintenance - its a way to try to get business for the maintenance company so that NINE people can collect a check every Friday and take care of their families.
Click to expand...

If any of the pilots flying those flights put it in their logbook, they are being "compensated" by you in the form of free flight time. If they didn't get to log the flight time, would they still do it? It sounds like the 78 year old guy might, so that might legally be fair game.

But then you REALLY messed up by saying "It's a nice way to try to get business for the maintenance company." I'm not commercially rated yet so the semantics of a lot of this is above my pay grade, but the way I understand it is that Part 91 is fair game so long as you are conducting flights under "Private Carriage." But once you extend your services ("Holding Out") to any Joe schmo in the general public it becomes "Common Carriage" and a Part 135 operating certificate is required. If you're helping the maintenance company attract new customers you are now a Part 135 commercial operation.

Could you only give rides to people you already know (aka "friends"), get the 78 year old guy his Commercial ticket and pay him $1 per flight? Probably still illegal somehow (so don't actually do this), but it would be a huge step in the right direction from what you're currently doing: Which is using Private Pilots as part 91 commercial pilots in an operation that should be part 135!

It sounds like you have good intentions and got offended by the scumbag comment (we don't all think that!). GA needs flight school owners that still care about promoting aviation and helping their communities (and keeping flying FUN!), and it doesn't do us all any good if the FAA comes and shuts you down. So I implore you to better school yourself on the regs and change what you're doing, even if it means the pilots in the local community have to lose out on this service. Good luck. :)
 
Last edited:
Zondaracer said:
I think that if a private pilot operates this flight and he doesn't pay his pro-rata share of operating expenses, he is receiving flight time as compensation, am I right or wrong?
Click to expand...

It probably doesn't matter. The "pro rata sharing" exception requires, at a minimum, that the pilot have a reason for the flight other than transporting someone. That does not appear to be the case here since, as stated, the only reason for going to to pick up someone.
 
inigo88 said:
But then you REALLY messed up by saying "It's a nice way to try to get business for the maintenance company." I'm not commercially rated yet so the semantics of a lot of this is above my pay grade, but the way I understand it is that Part 91 is fair game so long as you are conducting flights under "Private Carriage." But once you extend your services ("Holding Out") to any Joe schmo in the general public it becomes "Common Carriage" and a Part 135 operating certificate is required. If you're helping the maintenance company attract new customers you are now a Part 135 commercial operation.
Click to expand...
Good job on the research but be careful of the "private carriage" thing. Private carriage also requires a Part 119 certificate. But don't worry too much about the commercial ride - the nuances are enough that I've never heard of a commercial ride that went through more than some rote regurgitation of the simplest aspects.

But the "nice way of getting business" line has more significance. The FAA and NTSB are also on record that the generation of good will with the hopes of future business is also compensation (http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5061.PDF).

So even if one wants to say that the pilot is not receiving compensation in the form of free flight time (the first prong of the 61.113 prohibition), the FBO seems to say it is being compensated for the flights by way of helping to generate new business. In that case, it is still a problem for the pilot since he's acting as PIC on a flight for compensation (the second prong of the prohibition), whether or not the pilot gets anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top