Reimbursement of costs for a PPL holder

[J.R.]

Hi all,


I would like to know and clarify what a PPL holder's rights are in terms of reimbursement of the costs by passengers when renting a plane.

In the texts, I found this :

401.28 (1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.

(4) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from a charitable, not-for-profit or public security organization in respect of a flight conducted by the holder as a volunteer for that organization if the reimbursement

(a) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown and does not exceed the total of the holder’s direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight; or

(b) in the case of a rental aircraft, does not exceed the total of the holder’s rental costs, direct operating costs and the fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight.

This means, as long as no money is made (as long as the passengers' contribution does not exceed the total costs involved by the rental of the plane), the PPL is totally in his rights, isn't it ?


Thank you.

[photofly]

Are you flying for a charity? That applies for flights where the reimbursement is from, and the flight is for, a charitable, not for profit or public security organization, as described in the section you quoted.

It doesn't apply otherwise, where you'd have to look at (2), (3) or (5).

[digits_]

It is a bit funny though that if you are operating your own private airplane, you are only allowed to get reimbursed for direct operating costs (so not for insurance, headset, hangaring etc), where as for a rental you can get all the costs back (since all that stuff is usually included in the rental price).

Which is probably totally irrelevant for OP's question.

[AirFrame]

The less public you make it, the less anyone will give a rat's *ss what your passengers pay for their flight.

If you advertise "sightseeing flights for reimbursement cost" on Craigslist, expect to be discussed widely and ridiculed thoroughly in online forums, and possibly get a phone call from TC.

If you happen to take a friend flying, and after you've paid the bill and get back in the car to go home he offers you cash to cover it, you'll be fine.

[182-SS]

My understanding is also that if you are going to a mutual destination fuel costs may be covered by the passenger for their portion.
Is this correct?

[photofly]

401.28 (1) The holder of a private pilot licence shall not act as the pilot-in-command of an aeroplane or helicopter for hire or reward unless the conditions set out in subsection (2), (3), (4) or (5), as applicable, are met.
(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder
(a) is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(b) conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(c) carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the flight; and
(d) receives a reimbursement that
(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and
(ii) is for the purpose of sharing the costs of fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

It's really not difficult to interpret.

[Chris M]

There are two situations being discussed here. The OP quoted the regs for charitable flights and yes, if you are flying for a charity you are entitled to reimbursement not to exceed the direct operating cost of the flight.

Friends are a different matter. If you are flying from A to B and you have a friend who wants to do the same, it's perfectly fine for them to contribute. If you have a friend who wants to go from A to B and you volunteer to fly them there you're now an airline and can't take money from them. The key line is that they must be "incidental" to the flight, ie; the flight will happen with or without them.

As said though, if you take someone sightseeing, pay the bill, and on the way home they flip you some cash no one will care.

[182-SS]

It's really not difficult to interpret.[/quote]

That's the funny thing about interpretations... they are open to interpretation. There is a very large part of our society that generates an extremely large amount of revenue by interpreting things, can you guess what that may be? Why the legal system of course.

The more money you have, the broader you can interpret the laws.

and when you live in a "free" country
Rules and Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.....


The reaction to my responses or posts rests entirely on the readers interpretation

[photofly]

I expressed myself badly. I intended to mean that this regulation isn't difficult to apply. When you know the full facts of a situation it's straightforward to decide if you can accept a payment towards the cost of fuel and oil, or not.

However every time someone tries to recast the ruling in their own words to make it "easier to understand" they change the meaning, and so get it wrong. Even Chris M, who clearly understands what the rules are about, gets it wrong when he tries to make it "simpler".

The key line is that they must be "incidental" to the flight, ie; the flight will happen with or without them.

The carriage of passengers "incidentally to the purposes of the flight" does not mean that the flight will happen with or without them. I can decide that if I don't have a passenger to defray the cost of my flight to Ottawa, I'll drive instead. The flight won't happen without them, but if we do fly, I am still carrying them incidentally to the purpose of the flight which is to take myself to Ottawa, and so I can accept a contribution towards the cost of the fuel and the oil.

See how careful you have to be?

[Rookie50]

I expressed myself badly. I intended to mean that this regulation isn't difficult to apply. When you know the full facts of a situation it's straightforward to decide if you can accept a payment towards the cost of fuel and oil, or not.

However every time someone tries to recast the ruling in their own words to make it "easier to understand" they change the meaning, and so get it wrong. Even Chris M, who clearly understands what the rules are about, gets it wrong when he tries to make it "simpler".

The key line is that they must be "incidental" to the flight, ie; the flight will happen with or without them.

The carriage of passengers "incidentally to the purposes of the flight" does not mean that the flight will happen with or without them. I can decide that if I don't have a passenger to defray the cost of my flight to Ottawa, I'll drive instead. The flight won't happen without them, but if we do fly, I am still carrying them incidentally to the purpose of the flight which is to take myself to Ottawa, and so I can accept a contribution towards the cost of the fuel and the oil.

See how careful you have to be?

Passenger cannot "initiate" the flight. (And contribute towards it). That's why these ads on free sites are an immediate non starter.

Rephrased to TC spec. Thank you Photofly

Besides, it's a fine line. If the pax suggests the destination as a required prerequisite to contributing, it's not cool, I don't believe -- technically speaking. . Not that I particularly care.

[photofly]

Of course the passenger can choose the destination:

Bill: Fred do you want to fly out for a $200 hamburger this weekend in my 172? Where do you feel like going?
Fred: How about Lindsay? I'll pay half the fuel and oil.

Stop trying to rewrite the regulations.

[JasonE]

What if you just charged your passenger $200 for the hamburger and didn't worry about the expenses?

[photofly]

Passenger cannot "initiate" the flight. (And contribute towards it).

Oh yes they can.

Fred: Hey Bill - why don't we both fly to Lindsay in your 172 on Sunday for a burger? I'll go halves with you on the fuel?
Bill: sure.

You've really really really got to stop trying to rewrite the regulations in your own words. You're not getting them right.

[digits_]

Passenger cannot "initiate" the flight. (And contribute towards it).

Oh yes they can.

Fred: Hey Bill - why don't we both fly to Lindsay in your 172 on Sunday for a burger? I'll go halves with you on the fuel?
Bill: sure.

You've really really really got to stop trying to rewrite the regulations in your own words. You're not getting them right.

So when are you crossing the line would you say ?

Case A
Fred: Hey Bill - why don't we both fly to Lindsay in your 172 on Monday? I have a meeting there I'll attend at that time. I'll go halves with you on the fuel?
Bill: sure.

Case B
Fred: Excuse me sir-i-don't-know, I noticed you fly a C172. Why don't we go get a burger on sunday ? I'll go halves with you on the fuel?
Bill: sure.

Case C
Fred: Excuse me sir-i-don't-know, can you fly me to XXXX on monday ? I have a meeting there I need to attend at that time. I'll go halves with you on the fuel?
Bill: sure.

[photofly]

A and C: the pilot has no business at the destination other than taking the passenger. The passenger isn't incidental.

B: the regulation doesn't say the passenger has to know the pilot, so it clearly doesn't matter. But you said "why don't we get a burger". That means the pilot now has some business at the destination - he's flying himself because he himself wants to go and have a burger. So the carriage of the passenger is not the purpose of the flight, the carriage of the passenger is incidental to the flight.

If you're in any doubt, imagine the look on the tribunal member's face when you explain to him how you met the "incidental" rule. If he looks incredulous, it's probably unlawful to accept the money.

[digits_]

A and C: the pilot has no business at the destination other than taking the passenger. The passenger isn't incidental.

B: the regulation doesn't say the passenger has to know the pilot, so it clearly doesn't matter. But you said "why don't we get a burger". That means the pilot now has some business at the destination - he's flying himself because he himself wants to go and have a burger. So the carriage of the passenger is not the purpose of the flight, the carriage of the passenger is incidental to the flight.

If you're in any doubt, imagine the look on the tribunal member's face when you explain to him how you met the "incidental" rule. If he looks incredulous, it's probably unlawful to accept the money.

I see.

I can just imagine Fred and Bill in McDonalds.

Fred: "A quintuple huge mac please with lots of extra fries. What would you like Bill ?"
- Bill: "I don't really feel like eating a burger anymore"
* Your friendly TC inspector: " Excuse me sir, I notice you are not ordering a burger. To make Fred incidental to your flight, you have to order at least a Big Mac or you will get fined"
Fred: "Holy crap Bill, just eat a bloody burger ! I don't want to get you into legal trouble"
- Bill: "Fred, there is something I've been meaning to tell you, ... I don't ...
Fred: "You don't have a pilot license ?? Are you insane ?"
- Bill: "No Fred, I am a vegetarian. I am so sorry, I meant to tell you sooner"
The next morning in the newspaper: "Man loses pilot license for being vegetarian"

[photofly]

That's why they invented the Filet-o-fish.

They're actually pretty good!

[Broken Slinky]

I'll go halves with you on the fuel?

Doesn't say in the regs that it has to be 1/2s either. He could pay 99.9999% if he wanted. He could even buy your burger and biggie size it for you. He could even hire a bunch of bikini clad girls to wash and wax your plane for you. Unless he's a jerk, then you'll probably be waxing your own plane and buying your own milk shake.

[photofly]

He could even buy your burger and biggie size it for you. He could even hire a bunch of bikini clad girls to wash and wax your plane for you.

Nope.

He can only pay for a share in the fuel and oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight. No burgers or girls. Unless, for example, the landing fees were charged in burgers or girls.

[m39462]

Interesting that the CARs limits on PPL reimbursement (non-charitable, non-work related) only require that

(ii) is for the purpose of sharing the costs of fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

The corresponding FAA reg is more precise about how the costs may be divvyed up, specifying (14 CFR 61.113)

(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.

Meanwhile, UK regs used to have an "equal share" requirement but in the interest of European harmonization now only require a share (ref. https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?cati ... geid=16888) with no prescribed limits on how small that share can be.

Any evidence out there about how TC interprets this? Are any share, equal share, $/kg share all good?

[J.R.]

A and C: the pilot has no business at the destination other than taking the passenger. The passenger isn't incidental.

B: the regulation doesn't say the passenger has to know the pilot, so it clearly doesn't matter. But you said "why don't we get a burger". That means the pilot now has some business at the destination - he's flying himself because he himself wants to go and have a burger. So the carriage of the passenger is not the purpose of the flight, the carriage of the passenger is incidental to the flight.

If you're in any doubt, imagine the look on the tribunal member's face when you explain to him how you met the "incidental" rule. If he looks incredulous, it's probably unlawful to accept the money.

So where is the rule ? I am getting lost with all these answers, eventually.


Regarding the incidental interpretation :

The PPL goes flying. He has a booking and goes flying anyways, because that's his decision and wants to do it for whatever reason (because he misses it, because he wants to build time, because he wants to see the sunset from above, etc.).
So he rents the plane, it's booked.
Then, he wonders : "why would I go alone ? I'm sure some people out there would love to come, for so few money". And he asks around if anybody is interested.
He pays the rental once back on earth, and the passengers give him the cash for 100% of the rental cost (or 99% if we wanna play de "share" game here...).

Is he hurting anyone's feelings ? TC, sightseeing businesses, ... ?
Hurting any law ?

Now, come one, does anybody really care ? We're not talking about a business, we're talking about a PPL who flies without paying for it (or giving a cent towards the cost, if he really needs to contribute...).
There's a huge difference to my eyes.

[digits_]

He pays the rental once back on earth, and the passengers give him the cash for 100% of the rental cost (or 99% if we wanna play de "share" game here...).

That wouldn't be allowed:

is for the purpose of sharing the costs of fuel, oil and fees charged against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

Rental cost also includes insurance, hangar, employee, write off, ... costs etc. According to the regulations only the fuel / oil / fees against aircraft are allowed. Not the full rental fee.

Does anybody care if a PPL takes up friends and they pay ? Personally no, but the question was about what was legal.

[Chris M]

Unless, for example, the landing fees were charged in burgers or girls.

Do I have to transport the girls with me or could we do this on a credit system? I don't know if a 172 can carry enough bikini models - or burgers - to cover Pearson's landing fees.

[photofly]

Now, come one, does anybody really care ?

I don't get it. If you don't care, why did you post the thread?

[PilotDAR]

Now, come one, does anybody really care ?

If you speed and talk on your cell phone, while driving on an empty road, or smoke in a no smoking area when there is not a person around, does anyone care?

Like it or not, our collective society enacts regulations for the greater good. This discussion is about one of them. If something happens which diverges from that regulation, does anyone care? perhaps not so much, until something goes wrong. Most of our regulations in society are not so much there to mindlessly annoy people, but rather to keep things fair after the unexpected happens, and it ends less than well.

In the bigger picture, conduct your flights with excellent safety, and what happens in private, will probably stay private, as long as everyone goes home happy - just like the safe arrival home after that lonely drive on the empty road.....