We don’t have a Federal Car Administration or a Federal Boating Administration. This is an FAA rule.
[business trip] the pilot and passengers can contribute a pro rata share of the operating expenses, but neither the pilot or the passengers may be reimbursed by their employer.
Really? And would it be the same if they were using a car? Then the company would provide one or reimburse the expenses, no? Even if the driver has a simple driving licence and is not a taxi. Why should it be different if they use an aircraft?
alexisvc “I will LEND it to anyboy”……or girl :)
When business use is involved, carrying passengers can only be cost shared and no one can receive reimbursement. The best solution is to have a Commercial Pilot certificate and the problem goes away.
That is another great but USA-only thing… here in Europe a CPL is virtually worthless unless you are employed by an operator with an AOC. I think a Euro CPL is of use on its own only in some narrow contexts like air displays, charity flights (in the UK) beyond a certain radius, and ferrying. But international ferrying is a no man’s land anyway because you are moving about anyway 
Plus you can be employed by an aircraft owner to fly him around (which is a private flight).
The other area that the FAA is adamant about is “holding out”. This is where you advertise by word of mouth, or social media, or other advertising and let it be known you will fly for compensation including if the expenses are paid for the flight. This requires a commercial certificate such as an airline or charter outfit.
I remember that from my FAA CPL. Must be a very interesting grey area
The rules are strictly enforced on this topic if it comes to the attention of an inspector. Since it doesn’t usually come to the attention of an inspector, there is likely a fair amount of cheating. Cost sharing is very common. When business use is involved, carrying passengers can only be cost shared and no one can receive reimbursement. The best solution is to have a Commercial Pilot certificate and the problem goes away. The other area that the FAA is adamant about is “holding out”. This is where you advertise by word of mouth, or social media, or other advertising and let it be known you will fly for compensation including if the expenses are paid for the flight. This requires a commercial certificate such as an airline or charter outfit.
Private pilots can’t be compensated for their flying. They may be compensated if they are flying for business and the flight is incidental to the business activity, but they may not carry any passengers or property. If they do carry passengers, the flight must be for a common cause and the pilot and passengers can contribute a pro rata share of the operating expenses, but neither the pilot or the passengers may be reimbursed by their employer.
I wonder how strictly that regime is applied in the USA.
IMHO, it is so strict it is virtually unworkable to do cost sharing, and I bet cost sharing is far less common in the USA than say in the UK where many renters don’t fly at all unless they can cost share.
In the US, insurance and logging flight time have nothing to do with each other. Insurance is a contractual issue. Logging is a regulatory issue. In most US Insurance policies, there is an open pilot warranty clause that establishes the minimum requirements for pilots other than the named pilots. If the use of the aircraft is business and pleasure, then there is usually a clause that prohibits training in the aircraft other than the named pilots who may receive training. Renting the aircraft is usually considered commercial activity and insurance will either exclude it or limit it to named pilots.
Private pilots can’t be compensated for their flying. They may be compensated if they are flying for business and the flight is incidental to the business activity, but they may not carry any passengers or property. If they do carry passengers, the flight must be for a common cause and the pilot and passengers can contribute a pro rata share of the operating expenses, but neither the pilot or the passengers may be reimbursed by their employer. The FAA considers compensation very broadly and flying for free is still compensation because flight time is considered a benefit.
If an aircraft owner provides instruction in an aircraft they also own, then the aircraft is subject to 100 hour inspection requirements. If they merely rent to another pilot, this activity does not mandate 100 hour inspections. 50 hour inspections are never mandated unless they are part of a progressive inspection program in lieu of the annual requirement.
Our Group aircraft insurance for 6 members varies a lot when members change. Each year our broker asks for each pilot’s license type, total hours, hours on type, and accidents (in last 5 or is it 10 years?) The broker could see currency from that.
When I got the TB20 I was renting it out (was fussy about who to, but it was technically renting) and the “club use” insurance was £6200. When I stopped the renting the premium dropped to about £2500 (for a then 500hr PPL/IR) and has remained similar for the next 7 years.
So yes, insuring “no-name” pilots does seem to be very expensive.
What I have no data on is what it might have been with say 5 named pilots.
When you get insurance for an aircraft , what do the contracts usually say? The aircraft is insured for all pilots (with maybe some experience and proficiency conditions), or for a limited list of pilots which may be reduced to one name in many cases? I would say that it is probably cheaper to limit the list of pilots and therefore most owners get only insurance for themselves? Is it true?
For mine, it is limited to me and 3 other shareholders, with minimum hours of 300 each, with IMCr + any instructor from the flying school. That reduced the premiums a bit. It does however mean no one else can rent or borrow our plane, and if I want to fly with someone who is a PPL but not a named pilot, then he cant log the time.
