5 ms·

I don't care whether or not it's classified as an airline, but if I want to catch a flight with a private pilot and compensate him, fully understanding the risk

by trevyn 11y ago

I don't care whether or not it's classified as an airline, but if I want to catch a flight with a private pilot and compensate him, fully understanding the risks and rewards of general aviation vs commercial aviation, where's the problem exactly?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
cmurf 11y ago
Private pilots by regulation cannot be compensated. Only commercial pilots can be; and even in that case the buyer must separately acquire the pilot for hire, and plane for hire. If the buyer goes to a single source for pilot and plane for hire, that is an air carrier, i.e. commercial aviation.
- Scoundreller 11y ago
  I think the complaint is that the law should have exempted situations where there is explicit and informed consent on what is happening. Why should only those with rich friends/family be able to a flight from A to B via private plane/pilot? If a plane is safe enough for me to fly my whole family in, why is it too unsafe to fly someone else?
  - 0_00_0 11y ago
    You don't need rich friends/family. People charter small aircraft all the time. The difference is those operations comply with applicable regulations while this doesn't.
- st2p 11y ago
  That's not correct. See 14 CFR 61.113 (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. edit: the exceptions of the CFR are (b) through (h) but (c) is the most typical
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
    - st2p 11y ago
      Okay, then what would you call it?
  - 0_00_0 11y ago
    Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it. So I just skimmed over the ruling here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8/$file/14-1168-1589331.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7... and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at). The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense sharing put it in common carrier land. Which does seem to make sense under current rules.
    - st2p 11y ago
      Np. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong. edit: wording
  - cmurf 11y ago
    Sharing operating expenses is not the same thing as compensation which connotes services rendered.
    - st2p 11y ago
      Sharing expenses is compensation and the reg alludes to that fact in part (a) and by virtue of the list of the exceptions to said reg. If you really need a concrete example that includes the "compensation or hire" verbiage look at exception (b) of the reg. (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.

by trevyn 11y ago

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

cmurf 11y ago

Private pilots by regulation cannot be compensated. Only commercial pilots can be; and even in that case the buyer must separately acquire the pilot for hire, and plane for hire. If the buyer goes to a single source for pilot and plane for hire, that is an air carrier, i.e. commercial aviation.

Scoundreller 11y ago
I think the complaint is that the law should have exempted situations where there is explicit and informed consent on what is happening. Why should only those with rich friends/family be able to a flight from A to B via private plane/pilot? If a plane is safe enough for me to fly my whole family in, why is it too unsafe to fly someone else?
- 0_00_0 11y ago
  You don't need rich friends/family. People charter small aircraft all the time. The difference is those operations comply with applicable regulations while this doesn't.
st2p 11y ago
That's not correct. See 14 CFR 61.113 (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. edit: the exceptions of the CFR are (b) through (h) but (c) is the most typical
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
  - st2p 11y ago
    Okay, then what would you call it?
- 0_00_0 11y ago
  Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it. So I just skimmed over the ruling here: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B73DFDB22685257F1F005456E8/$file/14-1168-1589331.pdf https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7... and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at). The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense sharing put it in common carrier land. Which does seem to make sense under current rules.
  - st2p 11y ago
    Np. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong. edit: wording
- cmurf 11y ago
  Sharing operating expenses is not the same thing as compensation which connotes services rendered.
  - st2p 11y ago
    Sharing expenses is compensation and the reg alludes to that fact in part (a) and by virtue of the list of the exceptions to said reg. If you really need a concrete example that includes the "compensation or hire" verbiage look at exception (b) of the reg. (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.