Cost Sharing Your Aircraft | FAA and AOPA Discuss Protecting Your Pilot Certificate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 май 2024
- The first segment in this video series, Protecting Your Certificate - Keeping it Safe and Legal, is presented by the Federal Aviation Administration and AOPA's @AirSafetyInstitute. This series covers important information that pilots and aircraft owners need to know and understand when it comes to flying passengers and property, safely, and legally.
Get Advisory Circular 61-142 at bit.ly/AC61142.
00:00 - Into
02:48 - Question About a Ride
04:17 - Advisory Circular 61-142
05:32 - Cost Sharing Exceptions
07:11 - Pilot Privileges vs. Operational Rules
08:14 - Question About Flying to Hospital
10:49 - Common Purpose
11:32 - Question About Destination and Dinner 
Наука
I have been involved with "Angel Flight" for many years. We are a nation wide group of pilots who volunteer our time, aircraft, fuel etc. to transport medical patients for various needs. No Financial compensation is received. We do receive a tremendous amount of goodwill from the smiles and thanks from these patients. The pilot does not select the destination or passenger, has no personal need for the destination and has no specific purpose other than to fly the patient in need. We fly the patient to the required airport drop them off and immediately return home. The only input the pilot has is to select a particular flight from a list of requests. It would seem this panels interpretation that those volunteered medical flights are illegal. I hope I misunderstood.
Again...I commented that 61.113 says NOTHING about a common destination or common purpose. I think the FAA guy is over reaching with an interpretation of a pretty straight forward reg. The AC-61-162 is an ADVISORY CIRCULAR...not a FAR. I am willing for anyone to show me the "Common purpose" or "Common destination" mentioned anywhere in Part 61. Suppose I am planning a trip from A to B and I have the opportunity to drop a friend at C, which is along my intended path...but NOT my destination. What then?
I too am a pilot for the angel flight. I guess the intent is even illegal?
All these examples are about having a destination... What about plane rides? Just a few circles around the town or around the pattern.
As a matter of what’s morally right, I see why a pilot would fly someone to a distant hospital.
Every private flight with passengers creates good will toward the pilot and increases the pilot’s experience.
Therefore, all private flights with a passenger are compensated.
Exactly and this is why serious reform is needed in my opinion. Seems to me with the frankly ridiculously broad definition of compensation which basically means any benefit at all to the pilot even making the passenger like him more (good will) or even just logging flight time combined with the common purpose test, it means a you cannot fly anyone anywhere you weren't already going. Period. The regs need serous reform if a pilot can't fly a friend to see a dying relative in a hospital because he can log the flight time and it will make the friend have "good will" toward the pilot. That is just silly and clearly not in the spirit of what the laws are trying to prevent which is a guy running his own one man, mini charter service out of his hanger.
@@josh885:
The FAA is awash with ridiculous interpretations.
You can’t make a low pass to determine whether a runway is satisfactory for landing and then decide that the runway is unsuitable for landing.
If you get a third-class medical at age 39½y, your next medical is due at age 44½. But if you go on your 40th birthday, your medical expires in the month when you turn 42.
You can’t use cheap unleaded gasoline in your airplane because there exist old aircraft with turbocharged engines that wouldn’t work on mogas. Until there’s a perfect drop-in replacement for 100LL that works in every engine, no one can use unleaded fuel.
Motorists choose from three, four, or five different grades and fuels at the pump. But pilots are too stupid to understand whether their aircraft can safely use unleaded fuel and make the correct choice at the pump.
Flight instruction is a commercial operation when the CFI trains you in an aircraft that you personally own.
Power plants must be ether piston or turbine, not electric.
@@denverbraughler3948 Exactly. Plus while regulation is needed, the absurd hoops and cost required to certify anything, even a light bulb or filter, for use in an aircraft is slowing innovation damaging safety. Most planes in GA are the equivalent of automobile manufactures stopping all progresses and development and just selling the same designs from the 60s or 70s today with very little updated except maybe adding an infotainment system. Imagine if cars weren't using the 50+ years of innovation and knowledge about crash worthiness Because a new car design required a many year long and very, every expensive process to get approved to be allowed on the road. This is basically what has happened in GA. The fact that due to the certification process most planes still require a pilot to be manually controlling the fuel/air mixture of their plane's engines when cars have had 100% rock solid reliable computer management of this for many decades is absurd.
If I give a friend a ride in my car, am I running a bootleg cab service?
4:01 why is flying so different than driving apropos passengers. I can drive my friend that asked me for a ride to the store or to the next town but I can't fly him. Isn't flying under the laws of department of motor vehicles?
As a mom of a pilot all they did was talk in circles! Since I paid for the flight training and I tell my kid he has to take me on a flight so I can see what my money is paying for, does that create common purpose? Common purpose being kid wants continued funding and I want to decide if I continue to pay.
In my opinion, not only are you the passenger in this case, but the whole damn operation! So, no, you guys would not be afoul of the regulations.
Thank you for a thought-provoking video. I have two questions: 1) If a friend wants to fly to a destination and I decide after they suggest it that I would enjoy making the trip there for another reason, can we legally share expenses.? I once dropped a friend off on a backpacking trip while I remained behind and camped in the area. 2) If a friend requests that I fly them somewhere and there is no compensation involved (no shared expenses, no meals, I do not need flight hours, …) do I still run afoul of the rules?
Great point. I'm 66 so how is logging flight time going to help me get a job with the airlines or a Part 135 operation?
I missed the background on the brother at the end of the line, other than he was FAA.
Yeah, I did to. Seems shorted to me.
Too bad this compensation by goodwill was not directly addressed. It does seem to cover every situation. But for the case of logging hours being regarded as compensation, can the pilot make the flight and not log the hours, or does that violate some other rule
Funny you mention that as I also heard that. Regulations state a pilot IS to log their hours and it states precisely what is required to log in the pilot log book. However it only states you are required to log that time IF you need to for a listed set of reasons. So yes we log our time anyway, but its only required for certain reasons.
See FAR 61.51
What about this. What if a pilots purpose for flying to a place is logging the flight time and a friend is like oh you're going there? I've always wanted to go to xyz and see a museum the pilot isn't' interested in. So they fly there together, no money is exchanged for anything the pilot pays all flight costs. The pilot does some shopping gets the plane refueled and ready while the friend is at the museum and they meet back at the airport and fly home. Is the flight time "compensation" or is it now part of the common purpose for the trip? If its' the latter how does one prove there were flying there anyway if the only reason was the flight time? Further if good will is compensation, seems to me basically no flight with passengers is possible unless the pilot was already going there and can really 1000% prove that was the case. Some how. Which I'm sure is not what the regs intended. The were meant to stop a pilot from having paying customers the pilot doesn't even know without a safe operation, not to make almost any flight with passengers, even friends and family, basically impossible without legal risk to the pilot's certificate.
In the situation you describe, it is important that the components of common carriage be evaluated, particularly if compensation is involved (in various forms). The details you provide appear to identify the passenger as a direct acquaintance that did not involve “holding out.” The common purpose test appears to be satisfied since you had planned the flight prior to the passenger’s inquiry, though your interests at the destination may not be the “same.” Based on the information provided, this seems to meet the requirements of 14 CFR section 61.113, including a pro rata share of allowable expenses if desired. The intent of the rules are to protect the flying public by providing higher safety levels through certificated operators when they are paying for transportation. Please review AC 61-142 (bit.ly/AC61142) and faa.gov/charter for additional information.
Disclaimer: This is not a legal interpretation or legal advice; it’s simply a good-faith effort to address your inquiry based solely on the details you provided.
Where is the common purpose test coming from? I don't see that in the regulation.
My thoughts right from the start. There is nothing in 61.113 shown in the video about "common purpose". Let's not pull stuff out of the air. Makes me skeptical about any further "advice" from this.
Ref the inability of a private pilot being able to fly someone to see a seriously ill family member, begs the question of how can we be doing Angel Flights? The discussion by your panel on this scenario seems to have taken an extreme bureaucratic turn…
There will almost never be “individual reasons” for flying to a common destination…. FAA here, is making it illegal to ever fly with someone…
Yeah if you invited one of your friends to fly with you, or took your significant other on a flight as a date, then you're getting goodwill from that and that is then illegal according to the FAA as I understand the goodwill issue. This just seems like a deliberate "gotcha" by the FAA.
What if the pilot is an artist and has personal artwork in his plane and the passenger likes it and then buys the artwork from the pilot, but it just so happened that the passenger only saw the artwork once they boarded? The purchase of the artwork is unrelated to the flight and the money exchanged is simply a personal deal unrelated to the flight.
In this situation, the purchase of the artwork appears to be incidental to the flight given the information provided. Please review 14 CFR section 61.113, AC 61-142 (bit.ly/AC61142), and faa.gov/charter for additional information.
Disclaimer: This is not a legal interpretation or legal advice; it’s simply a good-faith effort to address your inquiry based solely on the details you provided.
@@FAAnews Good to know.
The FAA's interpretation of commercial use and comparison are unconstitutional and / or aren't the best interpretation of the statute. The FAA allows posting videos on monetized RUclips channels for literally every type of aircraft operating in the national airspace system without a commercial license except for UAS. We lose constitutional rights when we fly drones. So add equal protection clause in there too. The FAA probably wont be able to hide behind Chevron deference doctrine for much longer though.