Next Monday! 7 to 8 hrs Ferry flight in a R22 from SD toUT!

[highflyerusa]

Urgent! Need for a R22 beta II ferry pilot Monday Oct 4th, 2010 for a ferry from South Dakota to Utah. Expenses paid! You just pay the fuel (45$/hr average)! Great Deal!

 

Call 310-854-2555 for more information

[AStarB3]

now this is more like it

[NC AV8R]

Agreed. This ain't so bad. I just wish ferry flights would pop up on the east coast.

[r22butters]

Agreed. This ain't so bad. I just wish ferry flights would pop up on the east coast.

 

That's funny. I wish they would pop up on the West Coast.

[Miloe]

Heck, I'll chime in too...

Wish they would come up here in the middle, lol.

[Goldy]

Urgent! Need for a R22 beta II ferry pilot Monday Oct 4th, 2010 for a ferry from South Dakota to Utah. Expenses paid! You just pay the fuel (45$/hr average)! Great Deal!

 

Call 310-854-2555 for more information

 

Just curious, how many think you could do this with a PPL and how many think you have to have a CPL-H.

[r22butters]

Just curious, how many think you could do this with a PPL and how many think you have to have a CPL-H.

 

If there's going to be a Cfi next to you also counting the flight,(as there usually is), then the dual flight can be PPL.

 

If not, I suppose that having your expenses paid could qualify as "compensation", making it CPL?

[kodoz]

Just curious, how many think you could do this with a PPL and how many think you have to have a CPL-H.

 

Good question. Paid expenses sounds like a job, and the reduced cost for flight time has been interpreted in the past as being a form of compensation.

[NC AV8R]

I think butters hit that one. As a student pilot I took advantage of a couple deals with my flight school to ferry (with a cfi ofcourse) a r22 from their satellite location to the main office location for maintenance. I paid a reduced rate and got to build some cross country time. Good deal for eveybody involved!

 

I suppose if expenses weren't paid and the pilot paid for fuel, a private pilot could ferry without a cfi. More than likely a owner wouldn't want a private pilot to do it though.

 

It's nice to see a reasonable offer on here finally. Great deal for someone who can take advantage of it.

Edited October 2, 2010 by NC AV8R

[NC AV8R]

Good question. Paid expenses sounds like a job, and the reduced cost for flight time has been interpreted in the past as being a form of compensation.

 

I can see both sides for reduced flight time being a form of compensation. From a owner/operators point of view the objective is to move the aircraft from point a to point b. I think its understood that there will be some cost associated with moving the aircraft whether that be trailering the aircraft to point b or offering a reduced rate to have a pilot fly it there.

 

I have seen it mentioned on this forum before about reduced rates being a form of compensation.

 

Can anyone offer an instance were a reduced rate was construed as a form of compensation?

 

Surely a flight school offering a reduced rate to a student isn't compensation..???

[kodoz]

Can anyone offer an instance were a reduced rate was construed as a form of compensation?

 

Well, I can't pull the pdf, but there's this legal interpretation (edited down):

 

Legal Interpretation # 90-30

 

10/30/90

 

Ms. Judy Lincoln

 

Dear Ms. Lincoln:

 

This is in further response to your letter dated July 19, 1990, and follows the August 14, 1990, interim response of Mr. George Thompson, Assistant Chief Counsel of the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Northwest Mountain Region. You asked for a clarification of several FAA opinions concerning whether private pilots may act as pilot-in-command of an aircraft towing gliders....

 

The second prong of Section 61.118 says that a private pilot may not, "for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft." There is no question that the pilot of the tow plane is acting as pilot in command of an aircraft. The issue is whether he is so acting "for compensation or hire." 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....

 

 

Here's also an AOPA Legal Brief article where they deal with the issue, and an FAQ mostly on 91 vs 135, but that also touches on the question of what counts as compensation. From the Legal Brief...

 

FAR 61.113(a) specifies the privileges and limitations of a private pilot. It provides that a private pilot may not "act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire," and may not "for compensation or hire act as pilot in command of an aircraft." Regardless of whether it is the pilot who receives the "compensation or hire" for carrying the passengers, the operation is barred. The pilot may not receive compensation for acting as pilot in command even if no passengers or property are carried.

 

Quite probably both concepts were involved in this case. The important issue is the definition of compensation or hire. What the board had to say on this issue is important for private pilots (and for commercial and airline transport pilots exercising only private privileges). The board held that "compensation need not be direct nor in the form of money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation."

 

For the record, I'd have never thought this would be an issue for this flight. Seemed like a fair deal to me.

[r22butters]

I've been thinking about this some more (great question by the way), and I can remember when the company from which I was renting offered their R44 up for R22 prices. Surely that reduced rate was not "compensation", and anyone could take advantage.

 

I think the real question is, "is this flight considered for hire"?

 

I believe all "ferry flights" can be seen as "for hire". A company is seeking a pilot (either by posting an ad, or just asking one of their own students), to take a flight that is pre-determined, and must be done. This takes it out of the relm of "renting", and makes it "for hire".

 

A lot of us do these flights (PPL) with a Cfi, both marking it down as "dual". However, it may become difficult to justify such flights a "instruction", when all we are doing is transporting the helicopter from point A to B?

 

Take that "flight to Brazil" for example. I think it would be very difficult to justify a 65hr, one-way flight as "dual"? Therefore the pilot "solicited" for that "ferry flight" should be Commercial, (even though they're paying).

 

One thing is for sure. I wish the Regs were more clear!

[NC AV8R]

Kodoz,

 

Thanks! I'm glad you could provide that info. It's nice to see some sources.

 

 

No doubt about it... this is a grey area and if not spelled out in the regulatons the FAA should make their opinion more widely available. It seems like you just about have to have a law degree to be a pilot anymore.

[Goldy]

Butters- I think you hit it with your first post. I spoke at length to a local FAA enforcement officer from our FSDO last month on this subject. There was no doubt in his mind that such a flight would in fact, be compensation, and thus you would have to have your Commercial cert to do it.

 

Offering a "cheaper" price, like a deal on an R44, or maybe block time, is not in itself "compensation" as you are still paying a "market level" price. Basically flying an R22 for fuel costs, or about $45 an hour, could never be construed as a market price, and thus, is "compensation".

 

Just wanted to share..