Rental Cost Sharing

[KnownIce]

After reading a thread on a similar question, "Legal Implications", I was hoping for some clarification on just how much cost sharing can be done if a private pilot rents an aircraft and passengers offer to cover some/all of the cost.

I have a lot of friends who want me to take them up, and with my current flying budget it will be ~30 years before I can take everyone. So, could they conceivably cover 100% of the rental, as long as it's not $0.01 more (thus I am not profitting at all)?? I have heard 1/2 pilot, 1/2 passengers before, or fraction as per number of seats, but am not exactly sure where the law stands. My interpretation of the CARS is that anything up to, but not including a profit, is ok.

ideas?

--
P.S. Great forum - just discovered it and have already learned a great deal.

[Where'd who go?]

Go and have fun. Take your friends flying, and if they want to chip-in on the cost then all the better.

Your right, just don't make a profit.

If you are just out flying around, there will be no problem. The concerns only start when you are "taking people places".

Share the fun of flying.

[. .]

i wouldn't worry about it too much. keep your affairs to yourself and no one will ask you.

(=

[cyyz]

i wouldn't worry about it too much. keep your affairs to yourself and no one will ask you.

Exactly,

But, they can cover the entire Rental cost..

[duplicate2]

Actually, there's was already a thread that covered this topic:
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=13089

In short, it's NOT legal at all to share costs. They can't give you a nickel for anything to do with flying the plane except in special circumstances that I'm guessing don't apply to you.

But you can share costs for other things (expensive lunches, drives to the airport, gift?) that might coincidentally work out to just about the same thing.

Plus what endless said.

[cyyz]

No, that's if he owns the plane..

He is renting it out from someone/some corp. His Pax can Pay the ENTIRE rental fee.

Example,

1. He pays with Credit Card for the 1.2 hobbs at the front desk

ex 2. His buddy pays for the rental on Credit Card for the 1.2 hobbs at front.

ex 3. His buddy gives him cash the exact amount of rental fee for 1.2 hobbs and he goes to pay at the front desk.

Ex 4. They both walk off and don't pay at the front desk and both go to jail for 'stealing.'

[Hedley]

Some free advice from someone that Mary Cannon at the Tribunal has on speed dial:

There are two crucial things you need to legally cover your butt in this situation.

1) Swear on a stack of bibles that you were going to go flying anyways, whether or not your pax showed up.

2) Direct expenses were equally shared. Let's say your aircraft rental was $200. You and each of your 3 pax pay $50 each.

As long as you faithfully do both of the above, Transport will have great difficulty making any charge stick.

[cyyz]

2) Direct expenses were equally shared. Let's say your aircraft rental was $200. You and each of your 3 pax pay $50 each..

True, you could just swear on the bible, but no, if your pax book the plane and tell you to fly them they can do so and tehy can cover 100% of the costs..

[185_guy]

How about not worrying abut it? Get the people to pay the entire rental fee, they dont need to know the plane costs $120 an hour...just tell em they owe you whatever the rental cost is, and go home. Really, what are the chances TC is going to be standing there, watching you pay at the front desk, or watching your buddies hand you cash in the parking lot after the flight? I think TC has bigger fish to fry than that.

You spent a lot of money to become a pilot, doing it for free is bad enough.

[KnownIce]

[quote="duplicate2"]
But you can share costs for other things (expensive lunches, drives to the airport, gift?) that might coincidentally work out to just about the same thing.
[/quote]
This is exactly what I had heard before that one shouldn't do... since it can appear from the third person that the pilot is receiving more in return than the cost of the flight, and is thus profitting?

Several people have suggested that the intent to make a flight regardless of if passengers are present/contributing is important. Is this moreso the case if passengers will be covering the entire cost of the flight? I can see this being less important if the costs are clearly being shared.

Ie. let's say 3 friends are planning a trip to another province, and thought it would be fun to fly there instead. I am interested in going on the trip with them - but they initiated the idea and quite certainly I would not have made that particular flight that particular weekend without them. It seems reasonable to me that the cost of the flight (plane, fuel, ldg/ramp, parking etc.) should be splittable?

Thanks everyone for the input.

[ahramin]

You are correct KnownIce. Someone buying you a fancy lunch can be looked at as receiving compensation.

Hedley has it exactly right. When you are renting, the direct operating cost is whatever it costs you. You can share direct operating costs.

Or as 185_guy said, just stand up as a citizen of this country use cash and don't go around advertising it.

[duplicate2]

I'm guessing that no one read the thread I linked to.

Aeroplanes and Helicopters - Reimbursement of Costs Incurred in Respect of a Flight

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

The only 2 other ways a Private pilot can receive reimbursements (these include rental) are
-flying for your employer when you're not employed as a pilot
-for charity flying.
And farmers can do hire & reward flying for crop dusting in very limited circumstances.


Anyone got anything to show that you can receive reimbursement if you're renting for pleasure?

[Hedley]

is the owner or operator of the aircraft;

Dumb question: I'm pretty sure I understand what "owner" means above - it would include a person who either solely or jointly owned the aircraft, or a owned shares in a corporation that owned the aircraft.

However, precisely what does "operator" mean, in the context of this particular regulation (as opposed to elsewhere in the CARs?)

This regulation specifically describes a "private pilot". Crucially, what aircraft can a private pilot be an "operator" of? Does that include borrowed or rented aircraft?

The sad thing is that if you ask Transport to clarify the above, or any other regulation, they will refuse to. So, Transport wants you to guess, and if you guess wrong, they will come down on you like a ton of bricks. I find this behaviour somewhat bizarre, and helps to explain why they have such a PR problem.

[duplicate2]

CARs 101.01

"operator" - in respect of an aircraft, means the person that has possession of the aircraft as owner, lessee or otherwise

They essentially mean the person or entity that has control of the aircraft legally, not operator in the sense of flying the aircraft. So in this case, the flight school or person renting out the aircraft, not the pilot.

A private pilot would never be the operator of an aircraft unless they had legal control of it. They would then be responsible for implementing ADs etc.

[flyby]

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

Some posts have said that the costs have to be split equally but (ii) doesn't say that. So split the costs 99\1 That's still sharing.

[TeeKay]

I'll not comment on whether a renter can claim charges. If so, then be sure they pay you in $20's $100 bills can be tracked...)

As for reimbursement if you are the owner, however, then you can claim more than just fuel and oil.

All direct operating costs, such as overhaul layaway, tires, etc. can be part of direct operating cost. (Ie: if a set of tires last you 200 hours, and you can prove it [very important-be ready to claim your expenses with actual numbers], then you can claim $5/hr, or whatever it is, for new tires.

Perhaps the easiest to claim is the cost of engine o/h over TBO. that is an easy figure, and you can even base it on future projections. Same with Prop o/h. Basically, anything that is on an hour or cycle limit can be claimed as direct cost.

Again, the trick is to be able to verify these numbers if anybody does want to help balance your books someday. Most commercial aviation companies already do this; if you can get a copy of a commercial maintenance schedule for a private a/c, then bonus for you.

When I did some flying for CARES / CASARA many years ago with my plane, they paid me an hourly rate based upon a ratio of engine horsepower and aircraft seats, fixed vs retractable, fuel prices etc. It was actually a surprisingly high amount. The moral? IF you are actually able to get cost back, then don't sell yourself short.

[duplicate2]

Some posts have said that the costs have to be split equally but (ii) doesn't say that. So split the costs 99\1 That's still sharing.

Make sure you read the whole thing, this is only applicable to someone who is the owner or operator.

Note the reimbursement from CASARA that TeeKay referred to. This is what I meant by charity flying which more technically is referred to in this:

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

[lowandslow]

like was said earlier, do it, get cash for your time and keep your mouth shut.
end of story

[Brewguy]

If you compare the differences in the CARs between subsections 2 and 3, it's interesting to note that 3 (reimbursement from an employer) specifically mentions the scenario of a rented aircraft - while 2 does not. While 'reasonable man theory' would suggest that reimbursement from your friends and family should be ok, I would unfortunately have to agree with duplicate2 that a renter is probably not an "operator" under subsection 2.

Now that said, one might be concerned about being seen exchanging money in the airport parking lot...

CAR 401.28

Aeroplanes and Helicopters - Reimbursement of Costs Incurred in Respect of a Flight

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

(3) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement from the holder’s employer for costs incurred in respect of a flight if the holder

• (a) is employed on a full-time basis by the employer for purposes other than flying;
  (b) conducts the flight on the employer’s business and the flight is incidental to the execution of the holder’s duties; and
  (c) receives a reimbursement that
  • (i) in the case of an aircraft owned by the holder, is paid at a rate based on distance travelled or number of hours flown that 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
    (ii) 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.

... Hmm, I don't know about anyone else, but I often enjoy stopping at the Tim Hortons (up the road from the airport) for a nice relaxing coffee and a chat.

[Cat Driver]

There is one important issue to remember when discussing the legality of things such as this subject.

The CAR's are written in such a manner as to have what ever meaning TC wishes to interpet them in any given circumstances and hand wringing about what is legal or not is a waste of time if TC decides to rule against you.

Call ten TC offices and it is possible to get ten different answers.

Even if the rule is stated clearly TC can and will invent another rule, policy or meaning to circumvent the intent of a rule if it so suits their agenda.

You are basically playing in a mine field of uncertianty when trying to interpet the CAR's.

Sort of like playing russian roulette with rules.