Reimbursement of fuel costs on Angel Flights

[Wizman]

This might be another good one for Denny (aren't they all!?)

I read Denny's reply to the question about reimbursement of fuel costs (or the receipt of a fuel voucher) for flights done by a PP for law enforcement support missions, and understand the reply and references provided.

What about on an Angel Flight or other medical "Life Flight" done for charity?

As a private pilot, I understand that I must bear the sole cost of the aircraft, fuel, oil, etc. in order to remain in the good graces of 61.113. Is that a correct understanding? I cannot accept any reimbursement of the fuel costs, from any party? My FBO cannot "donate" the aircraft time to benefit Angel Flight with me at the controls?

Does the answer to this change if I am a commercial-rated pilot with a 2nd-class or better medical? Can I then accept reimbursement of the fuel? Aircraft? Let's say some company or charity owns an aircraft that they make available for use to fly Angel Flights. Assuming I'm properly rated, etc., can I as a commercial pilot with proper medical then volunteer to fly said aircraft on the Angel Flight, with no out of pocket expenses or reimbursement to me, under part 91? (Or does it now become a Part 135 operation?) I presume--correctly, I think--that I could NOT fly such a "provided aircraft" as a private pilot, as the flight time would be considered "reimbursement", even though the flight was done to benefit a charity.

If, as a PP, my mother-in-law gives me funds ("here's some gas money--go fly!") to use to do a mission, does that violate FARs? If not, then what is the difference if I get that money from another party (such as a reimbursement for fuel from a charity?).

Thanks for the replies, and I look forward to the answers.

Troy

[Denny of Oakland]

Instead of giving the political correct answer, I will bring your question up at the morning coffee discussion.

Denny of Oakland

[Wizman]

Thanks, Denny. I've also written to Regional Counsel for guidance. I did some more research, and found that John Lynch of AFS-800 wrote some "interpretation" of this issue in Question 633 of his current Part 61 FAQ document. He says that any sort of "reimbursement" constitutes "compensation."

However, Ron Levy of the University of Maryland and I disagree with this interpretation, and hope to get some clarification. Compensation in the legal sense usually involves a "quid pro quo" arrangement between the two parties... you give me something, I give you something back. That's compensation.

If you gift me something, and then I gift it to somebody else, I was not compensated. It was a transfer of a gift. If my mother in law says "here's $100 bucks--go fly!", that's not compensation. If my FBO says "we'll let you take one of our planes for 3 hours each month free of charge for use on Angel Flights", that should not be "compensation" either. They've donated time to me for use for a charity, and I am donating that time to the charity, not for my own personal use. I further donate my time. The FBO gets nothing back from me, so there is no legal "quid pro quo", thus, no compensation.

The same should therefore apply to any discount or free fuel I might receive, even as a private pilot, that I then "donate" to a charitable cause.

I know that the FAA has said before that the "flying time" I receive would be compensation, but that doesn't match the legal definition of "compensation" as a quid pro quo arrangement.

I'm interested to hear what your "round table" discussion might reveal, as it will likely take some time to get a legal opinion from the regional counsel.

Troy Whistman

[Denny of Oakland]

In determining what is considered compensation it has been the FAA's long–standing policy to define compensation in very broad terms. For example, any reimbursement of expenses (fuel, oil, transportation, lodging, meals, etc.), if conditioned upon the pilot operating the aircraft, would constitute compensation. In addition, the building up of flight time may be compensatory in nature if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft. While it could be argued that the accumulation of flight time is not always of value to the pilot involved, the FAA does not consider it appropriate to enter into a case–by–case analysis to determine whether the logging of time is of value to a particular pilot, or what the pilot's motives or intentions are on each flight.
Compensation as used in the Federal Aviation Regulations involves not only monetary payments, but also, the transfer of other items of value such as logging of flight time, etc. In the instant situation, it is clear that a monetary fee would be paid in connection with the flight. What is unique is that the fee would be paid to your service as opposed to being paid directly to the operator of the aircraft. In a case involving facts very similar to your situation, the FAA recently issued an opinion ruling that the fact that the monetary fee is paid to a third party who arranges the flight does not alter the conclusion that the flights are for compensation. The FAA, therefore, conclude that the service charge to be paid was sufficient to make flights fall within the purview of Part 121and 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations.
Under the Federal Aviation Regulations, no person may operate an aircraft for compensation or hire unless that person holds an operating certificate issued in accordance with either Part 121, 123, 129, 135, or 137, as appropriate. Any charge, no matter how slight, is considered to be compensation. However Part 91 allows the recovery of certain expenses for the use of large aircraft (defined in Section 1.1 as weighing over 12,500 pounds) and turbojet–powered aircraft in certain specified operations, when those operations are conducted in accordance with the operating rules of Subpart D of Part 91. One of those operations is ”the carriage of company officials, employees, and guests of the company on an airplane operated under a time sharing agreement.” A time sharing agreement is defined as an arrangement whereby a person leases his airplane with flight crew to another person, and no charge is made for the flights conducted under the arrangement other than those specified in Part 91.

The Federal Aviation Administration has taken the position that the solicitation described results in an expense, which would otherwise be borne by the private pilot operator under a true ”share the expense” flight under FAR 61.118(b). The result is a flight for compensation or hire. The prohibition of FAR 61.118(a) applies

It is our coffee clubs opinion that the kind of flight you are proposing would constitute one for compensation or hire. Second I or the (coffee club) cannot make any legal opinions for the FAA. This is only one mans opinion and any legal opinon should be sent to the FAA legal office in the region you reside in. While every effort is made to ensure accuracy, Denny of Oakland makes no representation as to the accuracy of, and cannot accept any legal responsibility for any errors, omissions, miss-statements or mistakes within these writing (CYA).

Denny of Oakland