Flight time as compensation?

10 Answers

1. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Sep 10, 2014

   If you are in a true “common purpose” situation covered by the 61.113 exception to the no-compensation rule there is no problem logging the flight.

   Generally, the FAA has considered logged flight time to be compensation in some cases but it’s a pretty amorphous concept, like “good will” as compensation (which is potentially even more problematic). The situations in which it has been applied typically involve other elements that make the flight “quack like” something commercial; where it appears to be part of a deal or services rendered. Otherwise, every time you took a friend for a 100% free ride, you wouldn’t be able to log the flight.

   I can’t give opinions on specific flights but offhand, it sounds like your flight fits the exception. The problem for sightseeing flights with friends comes in when it’s a flight you would not otherwise take. If you are just doing it for the friends, it is arguably not a “common purpose.” That’s probably what your well-intentioned co-worker was talking about.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

2. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Sep 10, 2014

   Mark,

   He has a Commercial certificate. Why would he consider 61.113? The privileges and limitations on a Commercial certificate reside in 61.133 (and I know you know this).

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

3. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Sep 10, 2014

   Kris, He would consider 61.113 because the flight he is describing involves an exercise of private pilot privileges. Wes’ not only specifically asks about that reg but describes the situation as a shared cost flight for a common purpose and not as an air tour for which he would require not only his commercial certificate but either a Part 135 operating certificate or compliance with the Letter of Authorization/alcohol testing requirements of 91.147 and be subject to limitations not involved in the 61.113 flight.

   Sure, Wes can avoid the entire 61.113 question by treating it as an air tour, meeting all the additional requirements, getting a LOA and access to drug and alcohol testing. And not be able to land somewhere else for lunch.

   Is that what you are recommending? I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s what he has in mind. Or do you see something in 61.133 that says he does not have to be “qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation” [61.133(a)(1)(i), my emphasis] and trumps 119.1 and 91.147?

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

4. 
   

   
   

   Wes on Sep 11, 2014

   Mark,

   Thanks. That’s roughly the answer I arrived at as well. As for whether or not I would be going sightseeing without friends, it is something I do on a regular basis anyway. The only difference is that if friends want to tag along, I have to rent a larger helicopter (R44 vs. R22).

   And Kris,

   Mark is spot on as far as why this is not a Commercial pilot question. I am specifically exercising my private pilot privileges. I am otherwise employed as a Com. pilot, and have no intentions (or time) of going down the road of starting my own 135/CoC/LoA ect…

   Thanks Guys

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

5. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Sep 12, 2014

   I had intended to comment earlier, but have been under the weather a bit this week. First time I felt like sitting in front of a computer and typing.

   Mark,

   If Wes only had a third class medical, then I would agree that he would need to abide by 61.113. Since he stated above that he is employed as a Commercial pilot, I assume he has at least a second class medical. Therefore, he does not need to limit himself to Private pilot limitations.

   Wes would only need an Air Carrier certificate if he were engaging in common carriage, which would require holding out to the public to conduct the flights and the flights would need to be either point A to point B or would need to venture farther than 25 SM from the departure point.

   Wes,

   If I lived in Hawaii and owned an R-44, I could hire you to fly me in my helicopter for the purpose of transporting me from point A to point B, or to take me on a sightseeing flight.
   This scenario doesn’t differ from yours except that the other three people are renting the helicopter, instead of owning it. If you are not providing both the pilot and the aircraft, you are not engaging in an activity that would require either an Air Carrier certificate or an LOA.

   The flight described would not fall under either 119 or 91.147.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

6. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Sep 12, 2014

   Kris,

   I agree with your “If I lived in Hawaii” example but I’ll disagree with its applicability to Wes’ situation.

   I didn’t get from the question that the other couple were the owners of the aircraft and Wes was being hired by them to fly it. Rather, I understood it was a rental aircraft and the two couples were “splitting the rental cost evenly” (Wes’ words, my emphasis). That is Wes providing both the pilot and the aircraft.

   Yes, if the rental was to one of the other folks on the flight, a good case could be made that Wes is just a commercial pilot being hired to fly and was not providing the aircraft. But I would be very surprised if an FBO that rented helicopters would be willing to give operational control to someone other than a qualified pilot who was checked out by them.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

7. 
   

   
   

   Kris Kortokrax on Sep 12, 2014

   You are right about the scenario he constructed. He couched it in terms of everyone evenly splitting costs, with his main question being whether he could log the time or not. Of course, he can log the time.

   I departed from that scenario to present one in which the other three could pay the rent for the helicopter and he could (as a Commercial pilot) fly the flight without being concerned about paying his pro rata share. I did this because he seemed unaware that it would be a viable option.

   If the FBO were aware of the fact that the other three were paying for the helicopter and Wes would be flying, I’m sure there would be no issue with the rental. Especially since helicopter rentals don’t work the same way as airplane rentals. Most helicopter FBO’s that I’m familiar with, won’t rent to you unless they taught you to fly. Maybe, if you showed up with thousands of hours of helicopter time and a significant amount in the Make/Model to be rented, they might rent to you after a checkout. The place Wes is renting from is undoubtedly familiar with him.

   In my scenario, with me owning the helicopter and Wes flying it for me, Wes would not have exclusive operational control. We both would. In Part 1, Operational Control is defined as the exercise of authority over initiating, conducting or terminating a flight”. For a Part 91 flight we can use this definition. For Part 135, OpSpec A008 goes much more in depth regarding operational control. I as the owner would initiate the flight by telling Wes, I need to go somewhere. I can terminate the flight by saying, I don’t want to continue to the destination, take me back. He would have some control over the flight in that he could refuse to make a proposed flight if he felt there were safety concerns.

   I wouldn’t take the scenario to the point where I would say the fellow sightseers were paying Wes to fly (although you could). Just saying that he wouldn’t need to pay a pro rata share. The others could pay the rental and he could fly them for free (if he expects his wife to speak to him in the future).

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

8. 
   

   
   

   Wes on Sep 12, 2014

   Since this is my first post here, I am really appreciating the dialog my question generated. While my “can I log the flight time?” question was a little tongue in cheek, I really just wanted to know how to weigh the potential consequences of being challenged by the FAA that I was profiting while not meeting the more stringent requirements of a commercial operation.
   I have considered approaching the FBO about such an arrangement, but have resisted because I would like to keep my recreational flying and commercial flying separate for right now. I am sure with the proper accounting; I would have no issues keeping them in their appropriate realms. Likely over cautious, but I just want to know that the “quack” came from the “duck”.

   Thanks Again Gentlemen.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

9. 
   

   
   

   Mark Kolber on Sep 13, 2014

   Wes, especially since it is your first post here, be aware that Kris and I disagreeing on small points that can make a difference is not a sign of any animosity between us. Based on our history, I have the utmost respect for Kris’ opinions and I hope he for mine, even when we disagree.

   Kris and I agree completely on the commercial pilot owning the aircraft scenario. Where we disagree is on the viability of a “passenger rents” scenario in which the passenger is given operational control of an aircraft. It is in fact done in complex corporate flight department contracts as a way to attempt to keep them under Part 91 (“wet lease” vs. “dry lease”). Even then, at least on paper, the lessee company is given the right to choose the pilots it wants, not one specifically approved by the lessor.

   I frankly doubt it would pass muster with the FAA in the more common FBO rental situation and “the pilot must be one checked out by us” seen as a sign of where operational control actually resides (none of it with the passengers). Parenthetically, where I have seen in in the FBO rental is renting to student pilots, not the instructor, in order to avoid the 100-hour inspection requirement.

   0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes

10. 
    

    
    

    Kris Kortokrax on Sep 14, 2014

    Definitely agree with paragraph 1.

    Agree that we agree to disagree as put in paragraph 2.

    For paragraph 3, it would probably require a Legal Interpretation, as one might get as many different answers as there are FSDOs.

    0 Votes 0 Votes  0 Votes