61.113
 

Hi. I've been looking through some of these forums for a little while, and it seems there's some knowledgable people here. So maybe you could help me out.

Here's my situation. I am a private pilot with a current medical, etc. I work line at an FBO near my hometown. The FBO operates two C172's for rental. One aircraft needs to go to another airport, approx 10 miles away for maintenance (having trouble with the electrical system. 100 hour inspection is still 40 hrs away). So here's my problem. Am I legal flying the plane to the airport for maintenance?

Under part 61.113, "no person whol holds a private pilot certificate may...for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." So this is what I am confused about, the definition of "compensation". I am not payed to be a pilot for the company, I just simply have a license. Also, I would be getting the same paycheck whether I fly the plane or not, so I do not believe that this would could count as "for hire". I am not planning on logging the flight, so I would not be getting compensation in the form of free flight hours, nor in the form of goodwill.

61.113 (b) says that a private pilot "may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraf 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." Section (2) does not apply to me. Section (1), however, might. Would the situation described above be considered "incidental" to the business? Or do I even need to worry about 61.113 (b), if I'm not flying for compensation or hire as described in 61.113 (a)? Or am I?

You can see how confusing this is for me :confused:

Wow, thats a tough one, I would call your local FSDO office if know one else knows.

You have discovered a little grey area. Call the FSDO, talk to an inspector and let them know what you want to do. 1. They will probably compliment you for your adherance to the regs. 2. They will probably find some way to say yes its ok, so long as you do not recieve pay for making the flight.

You have certainly gained my respect for doting your i's and crossing your t's.

hope to clear up
 

I talked to a friend of mine at the local FSDO and he didn't see it as a violation so long as your employer had not hired you as a pilot. The flight is generating no income or gain for you above your normal on the ground income and your employer is not generating income so it should not violate the intent of the regulation. The flight is incidental as your employer is not in the business of ferrying aircraft for maintenance. The other thing that is potentially more serious is the airworthiness of the airplane. If the airplane is not airworthy (electrical problems), make sure you acquire a ferry permit from the FAA for your planned flight. And lastly, if the airplane is not safe to fly - don't fly it!

i did this same thing last summer from central jersey to northeast philly airport (PNE) and was deemed ok by the FSDO because it was a non-rev flight and I was not doing anything other than what my job was, which was to look over the aircraft. The only reason I would transfer a plane however was if someone was renting a certain airplane from a particular airport, so i would just pull a quick swap... no one seemed to mind.. one word of advice however, while you're doing it, i wouldnt advertise it to anyone... lots of jealous folks out there who would love to get the free .3 on the Hobbs

Bringing up an old subject.....
 

Would the .3 of time be considered some sort of compensation. The pilot does log it as PIC time for what that is worth???

Also what if you had to bring two other people with you. i.e. passengers?

I think the FAA refers to compensation as any sort of monetary gain from piloting an aircraft. I've never heard of compensation being referred to as just free flight time. It works the same if you just rent an aircraft, and you're surely not getting paid to do that http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/im...ons/icon12.gif.

I don't see this as being a legal issue either. But, it goes back to the point made of the airworthiness of the aircraft and if you're comfortable bringing them along.


Kudos to you for checking with the FSDO though. Better safe than sorry.

==============================
Let me reiterate the FAA's position regarding a private pilot's accumulation of flight time. If that pilot accumulates flight time, the FAA considers free or reduced cost provision of the aircraft to be compensation, and the pilot is, thus, acting as PIC for compensation. (1992 FAA Chief Counsel Opinion)
==============================

==============================
With regard to this second prong of Section 61.118, the agency has repeatedly taken the position that building up flight time is considered compensatory in nature when the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft and would, therefore, be deemed a form of "compensation" to the private pilot under Section 61.118. (1990 FAA Chief Counsel Opinion)
==============================

Old stuff, applied a number of times.

Well what about flying clubs that get you steep discounts on flying. Or my old job, where you got a certain # of flight hours per year at 80% off because you were a full time employee. Is that then compensation?

No, that's just a benefit you get. Purely recreational flying can never be considered as being for compensation...what are getting paid for? Wearing out someone else's airplane?

There has to be a job that needs to be done, and you get something (money, flight time, discounts) in exchange for doing the job...flight instruction, aircraft repo, test flight, etc. Any flying of an aircraft which provides a benefit to someone else could be for compensation or hire.

As far as flight time being compensation, I think they would have to look at the individual pilot in question. They might be able to nail a low-time career-oriented pilot for that. I doubt they could get anyone who doesn't need the flight time for their career...doctor, businessman, widebody CA.

Not true (see noygonnadoit's post above).

If you repo an airplane for someone else, they benefit from that. Add some compensation (possibly the flight time itself) and you are a pilot for hire.

If you rent an airplane for your purposes, the owner does NOT benefit from that flying...you are just wearing out his airplane for him. In fact, odds are really high that you had to pay HIM not vice versa.

So if an airplane owner/ flight school/ FBO offers you the option to fly an airplane to another airport for annual/ maint. or repostition for whatever reason, and they have arranged a return ride for you. That would be considered compensation?

Wow, I would never have guessed since money didn't exchange hands.

Not in the FAA sense. You are being paid for your non-flying work with free flight time. You are not being compensated for flying. It's compensation for flying that the FAA is trying to regulate.

Practically speaking, here's what I think is going on. The FAA is trying to do two things with these regs - (1) protect the public that has no way of telling who's qualified and who isn't other than by the pilot or operating certificate they hold; and (2) protect those who made the effort and paid the money to get those advanced certificates. OTOH, people are always trying to find their way around the regs, so the lines are intentionally fuzzy and sometimes the FAA comes up with all sorts of contortions that ultimately come down to "if it quacks like a duck..."

Be careful. FAA could just as easily consider the OP to be acting as a corporate pilot, which requires a commercial license. Trying to separate his normal duties from flying might well be problematic in court. There are several good posts above regarding "free flight time" as compensation. I think one would have to survey historic cases and see how the FAA was applying - and reacting to - these various situations to get a "correct" answer here. For the specific (and long moot, I'm sure) case above, it's hardly worth the effort.

AOPA and ALPA both have lists of aviation attorneys that could check on this. With all respect to everyone, don't rely on legal advice from here! :D

Depends. I was reading the post to say that he had a non-flying job with a FBO (let's say as a bookkeeper) and as a bonus, was given free flight time to use personally, not for company business.

But I agree with you completely - in the case of any real scenario about whether something you are doing or planning to do is legal, it's best to get competent professional advice. I've looked at a couple of NTSB decisions and still haven't found one that said "some guy on the Internet told me it was ok" was a viable defense.

If you're getting paid whether you fly the plane or not I believe that is a textbook definition of compensation being "incidental" to the flight.

Just make sure you're by yourself or with another certificated pilot and I can't see how you're violating any regulations.

Nope, this is not incidental. This is the reason for the flight. It is a repo flight for mx, right? How is the OP getting to fly the plane free incidental. Flying to a meeting is incidental. Now if the FBO were to give a "bonus" on his W2 and taxes were paid. Then decucted the bonus amount for the flight expense...

Tough call I suppose. You can take the advice of others here and maybe call the FSDO for clarification, or contact an aviation attorney. There are several valid points for either argument, so clearly it's a gray area.

My thought: it's not worth the trouble for a 10nm flight. What's that going to add to your logbook? 0.3? Maybe 0.5 if you taxi really slow and do a super thorough run-up? Not worth it. And if your employer is pressuring you to do it, take warning. There are likely several commercial rated pilots and CFIs hanging around who are available and willing to ferry this airplane. Why aren't they doing it?

If he flies the plane he gets paid his wage for his general duties.

If he doesn't fly the plane he gets paid his wage for his general duties.

This is no different than a traveling technician who is on a salary. He can fly all over the country for his job and even though he is paid a salary of X-amount per a 40hr work week which is generally 9 - 5. That doesn't violate any FARs, like a demo pilot for example. He can demo the plane to an owner and not pay for the time...blah blah blah. Otherwise he would have to fly after 5 or before 9 since he's "getting paid while flying".

Bottom line, since he would get paid if he didn't fly that means the pay is incidental to the flight.

I agree that his salary (that he was going to get anyway) is not likely to be considered compensation, but the flight time itself could be compensation if he's a time builder.

Sorry that's not the test.

Incidental is a traveling salesman who flies an airplane travel to customers and gets reimbursed by his company.

Not incidental is a traveling salesman who transports company property from the plant to a warehouse

Incidental is (probably) an employee who flies himself and perhaps some co-workers to a conference that the employee attends and has a reason to attend himself.

Not incidental is an employee who transports other company employees to a conference that the employee has no reason to attend himself, especially if he does it regularly

Whether it's incidental or not depends on the nature of the business and the relationship of flying to it, not how the company and the pilot choose to show it on the books in an attempt to avoid the rule.

Lots of discussion for such a moot point. Don't bother an attourney with this kind of question, not worth the price of admission. A call to the FSDO may not be worth the time either. Bottom line, it's not worth the effort to jump through all the hoops on this one. .3 of flight time. Are you serious. It took me almost that long to write this. Have a commercial pilot do the flight. Even if he/she isn't compensated for the flight, there will be no questions as to the legality.

"moot" means "already decided."

As in, "this question has already been answered", not as in "I've decided this question isn't worth asking."

Worst answer is probably to ask the FSDO. The FSDO where you ask might not have the same answer as the FSDO where you land. And even if it's the same FSDO, the Inspector you ask might not have the same answer as the Inspector you answer to down the line.

I agree with you completely on the "it's not worth .3 on a close question" although others might say, "who the heck's gonna worry about .3".

He is (was) repositioning a company aircraft for maintenance. Hmmmm ...

Completely agree. :)

Well, yeah, the discussion wasn't over but the original situation is, I'm sure. :D

Actually moot means "obsolete." Meaning this topic should already be over. moot - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary See definition #2.

And good call on the FSDO thing. This is absolutely true. They way the regs. are written is open for interpretation it seems. Basically, if they want to bust you, they will find a way. And each FDSO will interpret differently.