Sharing expenses FAR question
Bernie Hirsch
I've done a couple of searches, but still can't find the section in the FAR's
dealing with sharing of expenses when you're a non-commercial pilot. Which
expenses can be shared, which can't? I'm sure gas and oil can be split, but
how about engine reserve, maintenance, etc?
What if you're taking a parent with a couple of kids in your four seater. Can
you charge them 3/4 of the cost, even though two of them are kids?
What have others legally done to get reimbursed for these kind of expenses?
Ron Natalie
> I've done a couple of searches, but still can't find the section in the FAR's
> dealing with sharing of expenses when you're a non-commercial pilot. Which
> expenses can be shared, which can't? I'm sure gas and oil can be split, but
> how about engine reserve, maintenance, etc?
61.118 just says "share operating expenses." The FAA has clarified
this to mean "equal" shares (or the pilot paying more wouldn't
bother them).
On August 4, the new part 61 changes will take effect. Here
the limitations section has been renumbered to 61.113 and the
following language applies...
(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.
So I would suspect that maintenance and reserves do NOT apply under
the new rules.
> What if you're taking a parent with a couple of kids in your four seater. Can
> you charge them 3/4 of the cost, even though two of them are kids?
There's no requirement to charge them anything. The equal share
is a *MAXIMUM*.
rgdong
On Fri, 16 May 1997, Bernie Hirsch wrote:
> I've done a couple of searches, but still can't find the section in the
> FAR's dealing with sharing of expenses when you're a non-commercial
> pilot. Which expenses can be shared, which can't? I'm sure gas and oil
> can be split, but how about engine reserve, maintenance, etc?
Bernie: the FARs are not specific to the issues mentioned above.
Rather, they are (unfortunately) a result of appeals, counsel
decisions, legal interpretations following...due many time to
the confusion which ensues. Normally/currently FAR 61.118, note
that the too brief wording may have been changed to new FAR
61.113 under the just-recent changes in FAR a month~ ago (al-
though I found no significant changes under the new regs).
For the most part, reasonable rental costs can be shared but
unlikely the "hidden" costs such as maintenance, insurance,
block time, member costs, etc etc etc.
> What if you're taking a parent with a couple of kids in your four
> seater. Can you charge them 3/4 of the cost, even though two of them
> are kids?
I'll let others contribute here as I have no direct knowledge
of the authorized practice. Note, however, that if you get
responses w/o verification ("I've-done-this-so-it-so-it-must-
be-okay") they merely serve as anecdotal evidence. Even
CFI's are not known for their exact interpretations of the
FARs when they encompass the vague or brief verbiage, expected
to apply to a much more confusing real-life situations.
good luck,
ray -
N 47* 34'
W 122* 18'
The Fire-Breathing Penguin
> I've done a couple of searches, but still can't find the section in the
FAR's
> dealing with sharing of expenses when you're a non-commercial pilot.
Which
> expenses can be shared, which can't? I'm sure gas and oil can be split,
but
> how about engine reserve, maintenance, etc?
This is a complex issue; there have been may rulings on it. Luckily, the
new Part 61 (which goes into effect in August), has clarified wording on
the subject, although they haven't resolved all the ambiguities. (I'm only
quoting the applicable sections here.)
61.101 Recreational pilot privileges and limitations.
(a) A person who holds a recreational pilot certificate may:
(2) Not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating
expenses of a flight with a passenger, provided the
expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenses, or
aircraft rental fees.
61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.
(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.
> What if you're taking a parent with a couple of kids in your four seater.
Can
> you charge them 3/4 of the cost, even though two of them are kids?
Age makes no difference. The important issue is that you all need to be
taking the flight FOR THE SAME REASON. This is where it gets sticky. If the
parent wants to take the kids to Six Flags, and you offer to fly them, but
you have no intention of going to the park, you're over the edge. If you're
all planning on going, however, the costs are sharable.
--------------
- sam black People are like computers.
There are no stupid people - just people running DOS.
// Penguin Flight, Inc. (510) 231-8944
// "Who says penguins can't fly?" Commercial Pilot ASELS/AMEL/G/IA/PP-RH
// pen...@world.std.com Flight Instructor ASE
\\ Citabria N5067C
Jer/ Eberhard
> Age makes no difference. The important issue is that you all need to be
> taking the flight FOR THE SAME REASON. This is where it gets sticky. If the
> parent wants to take the kids to Six Flags, and you offer to fly them, but
> you have no intention of going to the park, you're over the edge. If you're
> all planning on going, however, the costs are sharable.
I disagree... the way I read it is:
I want to go to St Louis to visit family. My friend wants to take the
kids to Six Flags, also at St Louis.
1. I was going anyway (I initiated the flight).
2. I'm going whether or not they go.
3. We have the SAME DESTINATION, but not THE SAME REASON.
4. This is ok.
Jer/ "Live long, learn much, soar high... and prosper." Eberhard
--
Jer/ (Slash) Eberhard, j...@fc.hp.com, 970 229-2861 OFFICE, 970 229-3598 FAX
Hewlett-Packard, 3404 East Harmony Rd MS-E8, Ft Collins, CO 80525-9599
C-206 N9513G, CFII Airplane & Glider, FAA DEN FSDO Aviation Safety Counselor
CO-CAP Group 2 Cmdr, MSN CheckPilot, BM218 HAM N0FZD, 64 Young Eagles Flown!
fighterace
I agree that the reason has noting to do with it the destination does. as
the other poster said as long as the pilot was going anyway and was the
instigator of the flight then the cost are sharable.
j...@fc.hp.com. wrote in article <5lv9g0$4...@fcnews.fc.hp.com>...
Michael Wright
> On August 4, the new part 61 changes will take effect. Here
> the limitations section has been renumbered to 61.113 and the
> following language applies...
>
> share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers,
> provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures,
> or rental fees.
>
bill of fuel, oil, cost of ownership, insurance, maintenence etc is say
$70 per hour, do the new rules really say I can not consider much of
this? If I were to rent the same type of plane for the same price
(well maybe slightly more for the profit) it is now magically "rent" and
I can consider all of it. So is the FAA saying that rental costs are
not made up of any of these costs? I think not, show me a rental which
does not include these costs and I will show you a bankruptcy in the
process. What if the FAA is really trying to say, as pilot you must
assume a pro rata share and the total cost used to compute these shares
can not be greater than the prevailing rental fee for your type of
aircraft plus fuel/oil if not a part of the rental and airport
expenditures. So is this new FAR an attempt to improve the rental
business at the cost of private ownership? I'm not sure what view the
courts would have if I were to claim this FAR was unconstitutional
because it infringes on the rights of private ownership by not allowing
substantially identical expenses for identical purposes.
Mike
+++
Bob Noel
>Hmmm, lets see now, if I own an aircraft (which I do), and the combined
>bill of fuel, oil, cost of ownership, insurance, maintenence etc is say
>$70 per hour, do the new rules really say I can not consider much of
>this? If I were to rent the same type of plane for the same price
>(well maybe slightly more for the profit) it is now magically "rent" and
>I can consider all of it. So is the FAA saying that rental costs are
>not made up of any of these costs? I think not, show me a rental which
>does not include these costs and I will show you a bankruptcy in the
>process. What if the FAA is really trying to say, as pilot you must
>assume a pro rata share and the total cost used to compute these shares
>can not be greater than the prevailing rental fee for your type of
>aircraft plus fuel/oil if not a part of the rental and airport
>expenditures. So is this new FAR an attempt to improve the rental
>business at the cost of private ownership? I'm not sure what view the
>courts would have if I were to claim this FAR was unconstitutional
>because it infringes on the rights of private ownership by not allowing
>substantially identical expenses for identical purposes.
do not apply logic and reason to FAA thinking...
Bob
(I think people can figure out how to email me...)
(replace ihatessppaamm with my name (rnoel) and put mediaone in hw1)
Michael Wright
Aye, that may be true, but they are not the final authority as past
court cases have shown...
Mike
+++