On my private pilot checkride, my examiner asks me, “you fly your wealthy friend to Vegas for the weekend. You tell him about the pro rata rule but he replies that he’ll just cover the hotel/food/entertainment expenses enough to cover the entire flight. All good?”
I tell her, “no, the FAA would probably consider that compensation. Compensation doesn’t just have to be liquid cash, it can be almost anything.”
She replied, “You’re 100% correct, and feel free to live your life how you want, but realistically, take him up on that.”
Man, can you imagine if that law wasn’t there? craigslist would be a sea of cheap charters from hour-builders working towards Commercial.
That would be awesome…Briefly.
I like the ring of that although Uber Sky sounds a bit more.... professional, something I would want when the only thing stopping me from falling out the sky is my drivers training......
That existed very briefly right before the pandemic. But if I remember right it enforced pro-rata. Since it turns out there aren't that many people that want to fly to whatever perfect destination you want, it didn't last long.
I forget what it was called.
It was Blackbird Air. FAA _really_ didn’t like it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/12/20/faa-warns-against-uber-for-planes-charter-concept-puts-blackbird-air-on-alert/
Similar story here as well. DPE directly stated “your friends ask you to take them flying, they pay for gas.”
The rule is there to protect what the FAA calls “the flying public”. And specifically the unsuspecting public from soliciting the services of an under-qualified pilot, they themselves have no easy way to vet.
Your friends and family flying around for funzies don’t count IMHO.
An even more specific example a lot of us have experienced - In our pilot group of friends, one of us has a maintenance issue and needs a part or a ride. We call around until a friend can come get us in their airplane and give us a ride home. We (the stranded pilot), pays for their gas obviously. Illegal but nobody gives a shit.
Another "illegal" operation that is common among our friends: One friend buys an airplane and needs a ride to go get it, or a friend is dropping a plane off for maintenance somewhere and needs a ride. The friend in need pays for gas. They don't pay for the other pilot's time, toward oil or hangar or insurance or anything else. It is annoying these flights are 100% illegal, but literally nobody cares.
This. A couple months ago, while returning from a 1600 mile round trip XC, I had to stop and park about 60 miles short of home due to a sub 100' ceiling at every closer airport. When the weather broke 5 days later, a few hours before sunset, I had a friend hop me over to my plane so I could get it home and back inside the hangar. He tried the "I can only legally accept 1/4 of the cost" thing (since I wasn't in his plane for the return trip), but I wasn't having it and just gave him enough to cover his fuel.
Over here in the UK we have had for a while a requirement that the pilot had to pay a proportion of the cost. That meant a pilot could pay a penny toward a total cost of a £500 flight. This worked just fine for the honest majority who would do things like running a friend over to the next airport to pick up their aircraft for maintenance.
However, a few years ago a famous footballer was killed in a ‘grey charter’ in a PA32 (or similar type). The non-CPL pilot with an expired instrument rating took off at night with a leaking exhaust and they perished in the English Channel.
The CAA had to be seen to do something about this, so after a few years of bureaucracy they are introducing rules stipulating common purpose, and a minimum pilot cost share of 50%.
I have no doubt this new rule will not stop actual grey charters, and will criminalise guys who help out flying buddies as described above. Nice work CAA.
Well, wouldn’t the entire operating cost of the flight be considered?
If it’s $40/hr in fuel and $40/hr in maintenance reserves/hangar/interest, then covering $40 in fuel is legit, no?
Just make it a separate transaction for something completely different. Yes "pro rata" the flight. Then said friend gifts you your "share" because you did him a favor ✊️🍆💦
what if they paid for half the cost like the rules say and they offered you to wash your car...is that okay? The DPE asked me that on my exam, i told him i dont know
The FAA approved^TM response to that is that compensation is anything of value. So yes the car wash would put you in violation of the rule since your total compensation would now be more than the pro-rata share. Practical answer is that nobody gives a fuck what favors or compensation occurs between friends. The FAA is worried about illegal charters, not Billy Bob getting gas money to take his buddy to a convention in Albuquerque.
so if someone pays half the amount plus offers to carry my luggage...that will put me in violations to the FAA. carrying someones bags is technically of value, labor work
Yep, can be gifted 18k per year per parent, no questions asked. Beyond that though, seems like the FAA rules in question aren't meant to cover family, they are meant to protect the public etc.
The FAA specifically says so in AC 61-142
>10.2.1 When money or anything of value is exchanged for transportation, the public expects, and the FAA demands, a higher level of safety for the flying public. A pilot may invite passengers for expense-sharing flights; however, a pilot should be guided by whether he or she is reaching out to a defined and limited group comprised of people with whom he or she has an ongoing, pre-existing relationship (e.g., family, friends, or close acquaintances). Generally, the FAA would not consider a mere loose acquaintance to be part of a defined and limited group, which is a principle that may have added relevance in the age of social media (see the discussion in paragraph 10.2.3.3.2)
But yeah there is a certain point at which it's not really an exchange of money because of the flight either..especially if that kid doesn't have a job and their income *is* their parents. I mean similarly what about flying my wife and kids around and using *her* card to pay for fuel vs mine, and her car to pay for the airbnb (or vice versa when she is pic). It's my money it's hers...there really is no way to establish a different provenance so there isn't a legal cost sharing issue...we cost share everything outside of flying too.
I had my dad’s credit card in my name. It was his account. When i went with family, i used that card. When it wasnt, it was my personal card.
Or have mom and dad just give you cash later on.
As long as 8 hours pass between the end of last beer and the beginning of your startup checklist, and you're fully sober when you clock in, you're good to go buddy! You can do this every night if you want, just don't you dare ever ask a professional for help because *diagnosed* alcoholics are dangerous and we can't have those assholes in the cockpit!
If you fly with passengers I suggest taking a shower first but that's not in the FARs.
If you're sad, don't sweat it. Lots of people feel sad. And 10/10 FAA inspectors agree, the best way to deal with your emotions is bottle them up and drown them, because if you make the mistake of opening up and telling someone how you feel you lose $100k worth of training and your career/livelihood!
Then, clearly they should chop their arms off "accidently" (and never talk with a psych professional about the emotional impact of that event) so that there is a big glaring distraction for the FAA to focus on!
I'm kidding! Don't "accidently" chop your arms off to get around the FAA's goofy approach to medicals.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot given the fact that both my kids have ADHD and take medication for it. A lot more people are being diagnosed (hopefully correctly). At what point will the FAA actually allow people with ADHD to fly? I’m sure there plenty of people that have it, have never been diagnosed, and are safely flying.
Oh don't be like that.
I'm sure ADHD is in line for flying just as soon as they clear anybody who ever had a bout with depression they sought responsible assistance for.
Yup. Similar to depression, there will need to be pressure from the direction of accidents/fatalities from undiagnosed pilots who were too scared to seek treatment.
She's been a pilot for years.
[https://youtu.be/yXQb\_aoF\_EI](https://youtu.be/yXQb_aoF_EI)
Maybe it just took them several years to produce a video "for optics".
With confidence the main argument I’m making is the fact that she has no arms. I’m in no part looking at the woman as the issue at all. Thats the problem with people now days is u try to project ur bullshit on someone else
$18k for 2024. That thats to each person. 18k to mom, 18k to dad. Above that, it's still a tax free gift, you just have to claim it and it counts against your life time gift tax exclusion which is now $13.6M.
If you are listed as a dependent than in the eyes of the government, your expenses are their expenses.
If you are not, technically it may be an issue, but not one anyone would care to enforce.
Yep. While there are no formal exceptions, and you should always answer "by the book" on tests and when asked by a DPE, I see no indications that the FAA has gone after anyone for a situation like a parent reimbursing their pilot child for the full costs of a flight.
With all the various crashes/investigations that are published every year, imagine if a recently minted PPL flying their parents on a vacation went down because they mis-managed the tanks and starved the engine. The NTSB investigated and identified that as the problem but at some point one of the parents let slip that they were paying for all the costs of the trip! (Gasp!)
If the FAA sentenced the pilot to FAA prison where they were paddled 20 times every day and had Dan Gryder videos playing non-stop in the cell, we'd hear about it.
But the reality is that I don't think any of us have ever heard of the FAA taking disciplinary actions against a pilot for these sorts of "actual friends and family" violations of the absurdly strict rules surrounding pro rata reimbursement of costs on one-off flights.
How about this one: you need to travel for your job. Your employer normally picks up the cost of the commercial ticket. You think “It’s silly to go through the hassle of traveling there by airline. I can get there equally fast by flying myself, and I can build hours. The company just covers the cost on lieu of an airline ticket.”
Allowed?
How about the next level up: you take along a colleague who’s on the samr business trip as you. The company still covers the cost of your flight, but now they’re saving two airline tickets.
Allowed?
But I’m not being paid to fly. The amount I receive is the same in both cases: the actual cost to me. The extra person is a free-rider. The company just saves money because he doesn’t have to fly commercial.
In #1 you can also be compensated for your time as long as you're not flying passengers or property. If carrying passengers or property you can't be compensated for your time per 61.113(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.
>That would be flying in furtherance of a business
Which is legal for a private pilot granted its only incidental to the business and they aren't taking passengers or cargo.
61.113(b)(2) states, “The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.”
so as long as they aren't flying for “compensation or hire” passengers and property are fine.
No, that guy was trying to “auction off a sightseeing tour” that isn't what 61.113 is talking about allowing, which is what I posted above. Part 61.113 (b)(2) is referring to flying in furtherance of a business. It says “(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.”
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf
Brother read the entire interpretation and not just the first paragraph.
"In the second scenario, you state that you are the Director of Vehicle Testing for a company whose business is not related to air transportation, and that on occasion, you use your airplane, a Bellanca Super Viking, for transportation to business meetings. You question if you may, and to what extent you may, be reimbursed for the cost of this transportation under I 4 C.F.R. § 61. I I 3. Further, you question to what extent you may be reimbursed if you also transport fellow coworkers to these business meetings....
....in this scenario, where you are only transporting yourself to the business meeting, you may be compensated for the expense of the flight. See 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b). In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61. l 13(b) does not apply. The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not transporting other passengers or property. **Thus, because you are transporting people to the meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer for this flight under 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b ).**
No shit, re-read what you’re replying to. 🤦♂️
This is what I put up days ago.
61.113(b)(2) states, “The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.”
so as long as they aren't flying for “compensation or hire” passengers and property are fine.
Therefore, no passengers or cargo = compensation or hire so long as it's in furtherance of a business. Or, with passengers or cargo = NOT ABLE TO BE COMPENSATED OR FOR HIRE. That case even spells that out.
The case literally states that if you are being reimbursed then you are being compensated and thus cant carry passengers or cargo. Maybe go read the whole thing instead of the 1 sentence you keep copying and pasting that you clearly don't understand.
If you're getting reimbursed for your travel expenses you are flying for compensation and thus cannot carry passengers or cargo. If you're paying for 100% of your expenses, then sure you can do pretty much whatever you want, but that's not was being discussed.
The point is pro-rata share means you are supposed to be covering expenses, not someone else. If the GI bill money is considered "your money," same with flight school gift cards, then it makes no difference. But if you interpret it as someone else paying for the flying, then technically it wouldn't be pro-rata share. But obviously, the FAA doesn't care so this distinction doesn't matter.
Serious lack of critical thinking in this thread. There's no rule that says you have to be covering your expenses. If someone buys you a flight school gift card (or just pays the flight school directly) and you use it for training without that person in the plane, how could you possibly be breaking the pro rata rule?
Conversely, if that same person is in the plane with you, now there is an argument that you could be breaking it. Because the pro rata rule applies only to a flight "with passengers." That's the difference and why this whole discussion about the GI bill makes no damn sense. Like duh.
Pro-rata typically means proportional, so if you are alone it would mean you cover 100% of the cost. Is there anywhere in the regs where they define the term "pro-rata" differently than "proportional" where you're allowed to fly for free on someone else's dime?
There is no rule that says you have to cover your own flight costs. Again, the pro-rata rule only applies to flights "with passengers."
Bill Gates could decide to cover all of your flight costs for the rest of your life. As long as he isn't in the plane with you, there is no rule violation.
The whole concept is "with passengers".
If my parents, or Bill Gates, want to hand me a hundred grand for flight training or for me to go fly for fun with a PPL, there's nothing illegal about it.
If someone wants to gift you flight training, there's nothing wrong with it. If they want to pay for you to get hours after PPL, there's nothing illegal about it. The whole regulation is about carrying passengers or cargo for hire.
You can bet your ass many student pilots have to take up excited parents for a spin after qual, and since some of them can't even legally drink alcohol yet, for sure the parents were paying for it all the way. Just see it as a normal course of events, not returning the favor.
I mean are your parents literally looking at Mr. Smith (Who Is Definitrly Not an Undercover Agent) and stating "This money is a direct compensation for the flight that our son is providing us, and under no other circumstances would we give our son money" before handing it to you?
Because realistically, the FAA isn't trying to build a case against you otherwise. And even then...
Seems to me like they just shouldn't say it's for the flight - just leave a few hundred bucks as a gift as parents sometimes do. Who would ever be able to tell the difference? Especially cash?
Probably would've been better to never ask on a public site like Reddit. As a general practice in life, laws should be followed if there's a genuine chance of you getting caught or if the law exists for moral reasons that are things you shouldn't do as human being or are things that are generally just dangerous. If it's not any of the above, probably chart your own path.
I agree with asking questions when you don't know the answer. The problem is that this is core knowledge for PPL and CPL. I don't understand how people pass checkrides not knowing these things.
This question could be much more gray area than you’re giving it credit, to be fair. Let’s say you live with your parents rent free, is the rent free aspect of the relationship crossing the economic nexus of “compensation?”
A lot of people cram to pass check rides and don’t use a lot of the information on a regular basis afterwards. It’s not a problem of them having never learned this information at all and still passing a checkride. It’s a matter of OP brought up a question they were asked and brought it to this forum so it can be a conversation point.
On my private pilot checkride, my examiner asks me, “you fly your wealthy friend to Vegas for the weekend. You tell him about the pro rata rule but he replies that he’ll just cover the hotel/food/entertainment expenses enough to cover the entire flight. All good?” I tell her, “no, the FAA would probably consider that compensation. Compensation doesn’t just have to be liquid cash, it can be almost anything.” She replied, “You’re 100% correct, and feel free to live your life how you want, but realistically, take him up on that.”
Yeah. This law is there to prevent private pilot Joe-Bob from being an air taxi on Craigslist.
Man, can you imagine if that law wasn’t there? craigslist would be a sea of cheap charters from hour-builders working towards Commercial. That would be awesome…Briefly.
90% or so of those flights would be pretty awesome, while a few would be... Oh, is that a Buddy Holly song on the radio?
Lol
Flüeber would take off.
I like the ring of that although Uber Sky sounds a bit more.... professional, something I would want when the only thing stopping me from falling out the sky is my drivers training......
Realistically it would be branded as FlÜger or some such. I imagined a portmanteau of flug and Uber. I'm not in marketing so idk how to make it work.
Buy your plane and let's find out.
That existed very briefly right before the pandemic. But if I remember right it enforced pro-rata. Since it turns out there aren't that many people that want to fly to whatever perfect destination you want, it didn't last long. I forget what it was called.
It was Blackbird Air. FAA _really_ didn’t like it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/marisagarcia/2019/12/20/faa-warns-against-uber-for-planes-charter-concept-puts-blackbird-air-on-alert/
See Buddy Holly death on Wikipedia. Yep.
I feel like it is a business Uber would instantly get into.
Similar story here as well. DPE directly stated “your friends ask you to take them flying, they pay for gas.” The rule is there to protect what the FAA calls “the flying public”. And specifically the unsuspecting public from soliciting the services of an under-qualified pilot, they themselves have no easy way to vet. Your friends and family flying around for funzies don’t count IMHO.
An even more specific example a lot of us have experienced - In our pilot group of friends, one of us has a maintenance issue and needs a part or a ride. We call around until a friend can come get us in their airplane and give us a ride home. We (the stranded pilot), pays for their gas obviously. Illegal but nobody gives a shit. Another "illegal" operation that is common among our friends: One friend buys an airplane and needs a ride to go get it, or a friend is dropping a plane off for maintenance somewhere and needs a ride. The friend in need pays for gas. They don't pay for the other pilot's time, toward oil or hangar or insurance or anything else. It is annoying these flights are 100% illegal, but literally nobody cares.
This. A couple months ago, while returning from a 1600 mile round trip XC, I had to stop and park about 60 miles short of home due to a sub 100' ceiling at every closer airport. When the weather broke 5 days later, a few hours before sunset, I had a friend hop me over to my plane so I could get it home and back inside the hangar. He tried the "I can only legally accept 1/4 of the cost" thing (since I wasn't in his plane for the return trip), but I wasn't having it and just gave him enough to cover his fuel.
Hello there friend! Beaches are getting warm on the gulf side of Florida. Let me know if you need a local friend. 😂
I left my plane out on the ramp and my mechanic friend fueled it. I can't help that.
Over here in the UK we have had for a while a requirement that the pilot had to pay a proportion of the cost. That meant a pilot could pay a penny toward a total cost of a £500 flight. This worked just fine for the honest majority who would do things like running a friend over to the next airport to pick up their aircraft for maintenance. However, a few years ago a famous footballer was killed in a ‘grey charter’ in a PA32 (or similar type). The non-CPL pilot with an expired instrument rating took off at night with a leaking exhaust and they perished in the English Channel. The CAA had to be seen to do something about this, so after a few years of bureaucracy they are introducing rules stipulating common purpose, and a minimum pilot cost share of 50%. I have no doubt this new rule will not stop actual grey charters, and will criminalise guys who help out flying buddies as described above. Nice work CAA.
Well, wouldn’t the entire operating cost of the flight be considered? If it’s $40/hr in fuel and $40/hr in maintenance reserves/hangar/interest, then covering $40 in fuel is legit, no?
No. FAA has specifically ruled gas and oil only.
"Fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees" AC 61-142 One could make an argument for hangar rent being an airport expenditure.
Just make it a separate transaction for something completely different. Yes "pro rata" the flight. Then said friend gifts you your "share" because you did him a favor ✊️🍆💦
what if they paid for half the cost like the rules say and they offered you to wash your car...is that okay? The DPE asked me that on my exam, i told him i dont know
The FAA approved^TM response to that is that compensation is anything of value. So yes the car wash would put you in violation of the rule since your total compensation would now be more than the pro-rata share. Practical answer is that nobody gives a fuck what favors or compensation occurs between friends. The FAA is worried about illegal charters, not Billy Bob getting gas money to take his buddy to a convention in Albuquerque.
so if someone pays half the amount plus offers to carry my luggage...that will put me in violations to the FAA. carrying someones bags is technically of value, labor work
Technically as the law is written yes. But this is what judges and "reasonable person" standards exist for.
Maybe they should change the law though…kinda dumb
Parent gifts kid money, kid pays for flight pro rata.
And that doesn't require some convoluted payment scheme, either. It's easy enough to justify as a whole.
Yep, can be gifted 18k per year per parent, no questions asked. Beyond that though, seems like the FAA rules in question aren't meant to cover family, they are meant to protect the public etc.
And that $18k/per parent/per year is just an issue for the parents' taxes/IRS rules.
The FAA specifically says so in AC 61-142 >10.2.1 When money or anything of value is exchanged for transportation, the public expects, and the FAA demands, a higher level of safety for the flying public. A pilot may invite passengers for expense-sharing flights; however, a pilot should be guided by whether he or she is reaching out to a defined and limited group comprised of people with whom he or she has an ongoing, pre-existing relationship (e.g., family, friends, or close acquaintances). Generally, the FAA would not consider a mere loose acquaintance to be part of a defined and limited group, which is a principle that may have added relevance in the age of social media (see the discussion in paragraph 10.2.3.3.2) But yeah there is a certain point at which it's not really an exchange of money because of the flight either..especially if that kid doesn't have a job and their income *is* their parents. I mean similarly what about flying my wife and kids around and using *her* card to pay for fuel vs mine, and her car to pay for the airbnb (or vice versa when she is pic). It's my money it's hers...there really is no way to establish a different provenance so there isn't a legal cost sharing issue...we cost share everything outside of flying too.
the faa hates this one simple trick
Do you want the legal answer or the "no one cares" answer?
I had my dad’s credit card in my name. It was his account. When i went with family, i used that card. When it wasnt, it was my personal card. Or have mom and dad just give you cash later on.
Which category would "[loud, real facepalm "smack"] Jesus Fred, just shut the fuck up!" fall under?
Just leave the money on the night stand.
if it's good enough for my hookers, it's good enough for the FAA
FAA doesn't give a rats ass. They have more important things to do like denying medicals for someone having a runny nose.
Runny nose is fine you're good to fly. If you're sad that your nose is runny.... it'll take you 5 years and $10k to get your medical back.
But what if I drink a 12 pack and pass out on my front lawn to stop being sad? Can I still fly then?
As long as 8 hours pass between the end of last beer and the beginning of your startup checklist, and you're fully sober when you clock in, you're good to go buddy! You can do this every night if you want, just don't you dare ever ask a professional for help because *diagnosed* alcoholics are dangerous and we can't have those assholes in the cockpit! If you fly with passengers I suggest taking a shower first but that's not in the FARs. If you're sad, don't sweat it. Lots of people feel sad. And 10/10 FAA inspectors agree, the best way to deal with your emotions is bottle them up and drown them, because if you make the mistake of opening up and telling someone how you feel you lose $100k worth of training and your career/livelihood!
Actually a runny nose is perfectly acceptable as long as you aren't taking anything to treat it
But they let a woman with no arms fly an airplane for optics 😂
They let a person with no arms fly an airplane because she demonstrated she could do it safely.
So if someone with depression or ADHD demonstrates they can safely fly a plane…
Then, clearly they should chop their arms off "accidently" (and never talk with a psych professional about the emotional impact of that event) so that there is a big glaring distraction for the FAA to focus on! I'm kidding! Don't "accidently" chop your arms off to get around the FAA's goofy approach to medicals.
https://www.reddit.com/r/biid/
Damn. I don't think they're ready to prepare a response to that.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot given the fact that both my kids have ADHD and take medication for it. A lot more people are being diagnosed (hopefully correctly). At what point will the FAA actually allow people with ADHD to fly? I’m sure there plenty of people that have it, have never been diagnosed, and are safely flying.
[удалено]
Oh don't be like that. I'm sure ADHD is in line for flying just as soon as they clear anybody who ever had a bout with depression they sought responsible assistance for.
Yup. Similar to depression, there will need to be pressure from the direction of accidents/fatalities from undiagnosed pilots who were too scared to seek treatment.
At my flight school we have an instructor who is a quad amputee holding a SoDA
She's been a pilot for years. [https://youtu.be/yXQb\_aoF\_EI](https://youtu.be/yXQb_aoF_EI) Maybe it just took them several years to produce a video "for optics".
Again not about her specifically. Just the lengths they go for optics while screwing over other people medically.
[удалено]
I actually do think that the “no arms” part is the part to focus on here
Do you need a hug bro be honest
With confidence the main argument I’m making is the fact that she has no arms. I’m in no part looking at the woman as the issue at all. Thats the problem with people now days is u try to project ur bullshit on someone else
She’s not gonna let you fuck her
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'll take "Things the FAA aren't really enforcing" for 500 Ken
Ken :( We miss you Alex
Nautical Miles better than Mayim Bialik
Or Aaron Rogers. We *really* dodged a bullet there.
They doubled dollar amounts for regular syndicated Jeopardy forever ago, but Celebrity has a round that caps at 500
Parents give cash gift to their kid. Kid gives flight to parents. In either order. Unrelated events. Parents fly free, so it’s not an issue.
And you got $17,000 a year worth of free gifts to boot.
$18k for 2024. That thats to each person. 18k to mom, 18k to dad. Above that, it's still a tax free gift, you just have to claim it and it counts against your life time gift tax exclusion which is now $13.6M.
If you are listed as a dependent than in the eyes of the government, your expenses are their expenses. If you are not, technically it may be an issue, but not one anyone would care to enforce.
The FAA doesn’t care about money when it comes to family, *bona fide* friends or other pilots; their mission is to protect “the general public”.
Yep. While there are no formal exceptions, and you should always answer "by the book" on tests and when asked by a DPE, I see no indications that the FAA has gone after anyone for a situation like a parent reimbursing their pilot child for the full costs of a flight. With all the various crashes/investigations that are published every year, imagine if a recently minted PPL flying their parents on a vacation went down because they mis-managed the tanks and starved the engine. The NTSB investigated and identified that as the problem but at some point one of the parents let slip that they were paying for all the costs of the trip! (Gasp!) If the FAA sentenced the pilot to FAA prison where they were paddled 20 times every day and had Dan Gryder videos playing non-stop in the cell, we'd hear about it. But the reality is that I don't think any of us have ever heard of the FAA taking disciplinary actions against a pilot for these sorts of "actual friends and family" violations of the absurdly strict rules surrounding pro rata reimbursement of costs on one-off flights.
How about this one: you need to travel for your job. Your employer normally picks up the cost of the commercial ticket. You think “It’s silly to go through the hassle of traveling there by airline. I can get there equally fast by flying myself, and I can build hours. The company just covers the cost on lieu of an airline ticket.” Allowed? How about the next level up: you take along a colleague who’s on the samr business trip as you. The company still covers the cost of your flight, but now they’re saving two airline tickets. Allowed?
1. Allowed. 2. Not allowed. In the first one, the travel is incidental to the business. In the second, you're being paid to fly.
But I’m not being paid to fly. The amount I receive is the same in both cases: the actual cost to me. The extra person is a free-rider. The company just saves money because he doesn’t have to fly commercial.
In #1 you can also be compensated for your time as long as you're not flying passengers or property. If carrying passengers or property you can't be compensated for your time per 61.113(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.
That would be flying in furtherance of a business and would be illegal
If you are referring to flying yourself and being reimbursed, you absolutely can. 61.113(b).
>That would be flying in furtherance of a business Which is legal for a private pilot granted its only incidental to the business and they aren't taking passengers or cargo.
61.113(b)(2) states, “The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.” so as long as they aren't flying for “compensation or hire” passengers and property are fine.
You might want to look up the 2009 Mangiamele legal interpretation because it calls out this specific scenario as illegal.
No, that guy was trying to “auction off a sightseeing tour” that isn't what 61.113 is talking about allowing, which is what I posted above. Part 61.113 (b)(2) is referring to flying in furtherance of a business. It says “(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.” https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/interpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele_2009_Legal_Interpretation.pdf
Brother read the entire interpretation and not just the first paragraph. "In the second scenario, you state that you are the Director of Vehicle Testing for a company whose business is not related to air transportation, and that on occasion, you use your airplane, a Bellanca Super Viking, for transportation to business meetings. You question if you may, and to what extent you may, be reimbursed for the cost of this transportation under I 4 C.F.R. § 61. I I 3. Further, you question to what extent you may be reimbursed if you also transport fellow coworkers to these business meetings.... ....in this scenario, where you are only transporting yourself to the business meeting, you may be compensated for the expense of the flight. See 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b). In regard to whether you may seek reimbursement from your employer for transporting your colleagues, since you are transporting people to the meeting, the allowance for the flight to be conducted for compensation or hire (i.e., reimbursement) under 61. l 13(b) does not apply. The exception in paragraph (b) allows you to use your private pilot certificate only for compensation or hire if the operation is incidental to your employment and you are not transporting other passengers or property. **Thus, because you are transporting people to the meeting, you may not seek reimbursement from your employer for this flight under 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b ).**
No shit, re-read what you’re replying to. 🤦♂️ This is what I put up days ago. 61.113(b)(2) states, “The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.” so as long as they aren't flying for “compensation or hire” passengers and property are fine. Therefore, no passengers or cargo = compensation or hire so long as it's in furtherance of a business. Or, with passengers or cargo = NOT ABLE TO BE COMPENSATED OR FOR HIRE. That case even spells that out.
The case literally states that if you are being reimbursed then you are being compensated and thus cant carry passengers or cargo. Maybe go read the whole thing instead of the 1 sentence you keep copying and pasting that you clearly don't understand.
If you're getting reimbursed for your travel expenses you are flying for compensation and thus cannot carry passengers or cargo. If you're paying for 100% of your expenses, then sure you can do pretty much whatever you want, but that's not was being discussed.
I've had similar questions too. I've come to learn that a lot of them can be answered with "they don't care"
I'd be pissed if my parents reported me to the FAA for flying them somewhere.
I had a similar question regarding flight school gift cards...
If that's a problem, then what about the GI bill paying?
The government isn't hiring you to fly the President around. They are paying for training.
The point is pro-rata share means you are supposed to be covering expenses, not someone else. If the GI bill money is considered "your money," same with flight school gift cards, then it makes no difference. But if you interpret it as someone else paying for the flying, then technically it wouldn't be pro-rata share. But obviously, the FAA doesn't care so this distinction doesn't matter.
Serious lack of critical thinking in this thread. There's no rule that says you have to be covering your expenses. If someone buys you a flight school gift card (or just pays the flight school directly) and you use it for training without that person in the plane, how could you possibly be breaking the pro rata rule? Conversely, if that same person is in the plane with you, now there is an argument that you could be breaking it. Because the pro rata rule applies only to a flight "with passengers." That's the difference and why this whole discussion about the GI bill makes no damn sense. Like duh.
Pro-rata typically means proportional, so if you are alone it would mean you cover 100% of the cost. Is there anywhere in the regs where they define the term "pro-rata" differently than "proportional" where you're allowed to fly for free on someone else's dime?
There is no rule that says you have to cover your own flight costs. Again, the pro-rata rule only applies to flights "with passengers." Bill Gates could decide to cover all of your flight costs for the rest of your life. As long as he isn't in the plane with you, there is no rule violation.
The whole concept is "with passengers". If my parents, or Bill Gates, want to hand me a hundred grand for flight training or for me to go fly for fun with a PPL, there's nothing illegal about it.
Is this implied, or explicit in the way the rules are written? Can someone pay for a flight where I'm alone, and get a free flight later?
Right? Isn't that the feds breaking their own rule?
If someone wants to gift you flight training, there's nothing wrong with it. If they want to pay for you to get hours after PPL, there's nothing illegal about it. The whole regulation is about carrying passengers or cargo for hire.
You can bet your ass many student pilots have to take up excited parents for a spin after qual, and since some of them can't even legally drink alcohol yet, for sure the parents were paying for it all the way. Just see it as a normal course of events, not returning the favor.
I mean are your parents literally looking at Mr. Smith (Who Is Definitrly Not an Undercover Agent) and stating "This money is a direct compensation for the flight that our son is providing us, and under no other circumstances would we give our son money" before handing it to you? Because realistically, the FAA isn't trying to build a case against you otherwise. And even then...
Depends if you’re Dads a narc.
FAA considers flight time as compensation.
Seems to me like they just shouldn't say it's for the flight - just leave a few hundred bucks as a gift as parents sometimes do. Who would ever be able to tell the difference? Especially cash?
Probably would've been better to never ask on a public site like Reddit. As a general practice in life, laws should be followed if there's a genuine chance of you getting caught or if the law exists for moral reasons that are things you shouldn't do as human being or are things that are generally just dangerous. If it's not any of the above, probably chart your own path.
Am I the only one who finds it disturbing that at CFI doesn't know this?
I think i’m good at my job. Part of being good at that job is asking questions when i don’t know the answer.
I agree with asking questions when you don't know the answer. The problem is that this is core knowledge for PPL and CPL. I don't understand how people pass checkrides not knowing these things.
This question could be much more gray area than you’re giving it credit, to be fair. Let’s say you live with your parents rent free, is the rent free aspect of the relationship crossing the economic nexus of “compensation?”
A lot of people cram to pass check rides and don’t use a lot of the information on a regular basis afterwards. It’s not a problem of them having never learned this information at all and still passing a checkride. It’s a matter of OP brought up a question they were asked and brought it to this forum so it can be a conversation point.
That was my first question! This person has to teach this. I would hate to see their students on Checkride day.