What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Barrowing a Friend's RV

glockjacket

I'm New Here
Hi all,

Been stalking the site for a week or two now. Heavily considering beginning an -10.

A friend of mine has one. Was considering trying to work out a way I could use it while I'm building mine.

How do I go about borrowing his RV and both of us being covered insurance wise and everything? I have the standard AOPA non-owned plane insurance with hull insurance. I do plan on some transition training..

Thanks, GJ
 
Assuming your friend is open to this, you need to be on his insurance as a named pilot. Hopefully you have similar or better qualifications than your friend, policies are written to the least qualified named pilot. You should try to log 10 hours in his plane as PIC prior to asking the insurance company to be named on the policy (safety pilot time would be perfect). The 'everything' side of it would be up to him as the airplane owner. I know I take maintenance labor and alcohol as tribute from the non-family member on my policy. JMHO.
 
Last edited:
Have him add you to his policy as an additional pilot. Insurance company will most likely require your logbook/ experience information and maybe a checkout in the plain.
 
It is my understanding that being listed as a Named Pilot or Additional Pilot does not afford the NP or AP any guaranteed level of coverage -- it only serves to protect the Insured. If the NP or AP is considered negligent, it is possible that the insurance company will protect/reimburse the Insured but may subrogate against the NP or AP. Be sure to check with your insurance agent/company to verify your desired coverage.

If you are flying someone else's plane as PIC, you would greatly benefit from non-owner coverage.
 
First thing you need to do: go to EAA.org, and read the rights and limitations of EAB aircraft. One is that they cannot be used for compensation or hire, so unless your friend will let you fly for free, you have a problem. Some posts have suggested illegal ways around this. Some posts have suggested mis-representing your logbook data. Do what you think is best for your friend.
There are really only two ways to legally do this:
1, You have a really good friend, who will really let you fly for free.
2. You can buy a fraction of his plane, and become a co-owner.
 
First thing you need to do: go to EAA.org, and read the rights and limitations of EAB aircraft. One is that they cannot be used for compensation or hire, so unless your friend will let you fly for free, you have a problem. Some posts have suggested illegal ways around this. Some posts have suggested mis-representing your logbook data. Do what you think is best for your friend.
There are really only two ways to legally do this:
1, You have a really good friend, who will really let you fly for free.
2. You can buy a fraction of his plane, and become a co-owner.

This is what I was curious about most. Sounds like this isn't going to be an option then. Thanks all.
 
First thing you need to do: go to EAA.org, and read the rights and limitations of EAB aircraft. One is that they cannot be used for compensation or hire, so unless your friend will let you fly for free, you have a problem. Some posts have suggested illegal ways around this. Some posts have suggested mis-representing your logbook data. Do what you think is best for your friend.
There are really only two ways to legally do this:
1, You have a really good friend, who will really let you fly for free.
2. You can buy a fraction of his plane, and become a co-owner.

I've read §91.319 and nowhere does it state an experimental can't be leased or rented unless it's a LSA, §21.191(i), which the the RV-12 is the only LSA of the RV's. The only real question is how does the FAA define compensation or hire? From what I've read, the FAA only talks about carrying persons or property for compensation or hire. I see nothing about renting out your plane to another pilot as long as you have had your plane inspected within the last 100 hrs. And according to my insurance agent an insurance company will insure an experimental for rental. As far as the operating limitations, it states, "no person may operate this aircraft for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.". The operating limitations also state, "This aircraft must not be used for glider towing, banner towing, or intentional parachute jumping.". I see nothing else in the limitations on renting or leasing.
 
"no person may operate this aircraft for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.". .

Sigh. It seems every month there?s another amateur lawyer.
?Operator? is faa-speak for the person having operational control of the airplane. e.g., the owner. The owner cannot be hired, paid, or otherwise compensated for any use of his airplane involving the carriage of people or cargo. It?s hard to imagine a rental with no person on board being carried somewhere.

But my opinion doesn?t count. Ask the FAA for their interpretation.
 
?Operator? is faa-speak for the person having operational control of the airplane. e.g., the owner. The owner cannot be hired, paid, or otherwise compensated for any use of his airplane involving the carriage of people or cargo. It?s hard to imagine a rental with no person on board being carried somewhere.

Not saying you are wrong with respect to FAAs interpretation, but the average joe might reasonably believe that ?operate? means to fly the plane as the PIC, which changes things. At the least, there is lack of clarity here.

Erich
 
Mountains

It would seem that, as usual, mountains are being made of mole hills.

All of the aircraft that I have personally owned have had additional named pilots, all of who were covered by the insurance policy...YMMV

Also, the FAA's interpretation is the ONLY one that matters and they can be pretty rigid in their interpretations, especially when it comes to perceived commercial operations...
 
Sigh. It seems every month there?s another amateur lawyer.
?Operator? is faa-speak for the person having operational control of the airplane. e.g., the owner. The owner cannot be hired, paid, or otherwise compensated for any use of his airplane involving the carriage of people or cargo. It?s hard to imagine a rental with no person on board being carried somewhere.

But my opinion doesn?t count. Ask the FAA for their interpretation.

May I assume by your comment you are a seasoned lawyer and more specifically an FAA atty? Unfortunately for you I did ask the Tampa FSDO office about 2 yrs ago and they didn?t really know. The person I spoke to asked another person in his office and he didn?t know either. And the day before, since it was after 5p, I decided to call the Oakland FSDO office and when he pointed out 91.319(f) I pointed out that it refers to a LSA upon him answering, ?good point, I need to look into it?. I asked an FAA examiner who has since retired and he said the great thing about the FAR?s is it only states what you can?t do and what you have to do. It doesn?t state what you can do. In his opinion he said, ?I don?t see why you can?t rent or lease it out.?.
I think all can agree the term operator isn?t well defined. I can see where operator can mean the owner of the plane and not just the person piloting the plane. If the FAA does mean operator to include the owner of the plane, than they should state it clearly by saying, ?owner and/or operator of the aircraft?. Not to be argumentative but this is definitely a valid argument. The fact is, is each FSDO office can interpret the regs as they see it and unfortunately they are judge and jury.
 
Not saying you are wrong with respect to FAAs interpretation, but the average joe might reasonably believe that ?operate? means to fly the plane as the PIC, which changes things. At the least, there is lack of clarity here.

Erich

Ditto. "Operational control" most definitely means PIC in my mind. Even the word "operate" alone is a stretch as a term for the plane's owner; throwing "control" in there makes it obvious. You don't "operate/control" an asset. You "possess/direct" it.
 
May I assume by your comment you are a seasoned lawyer and more specifically an FAA atty? Unfortunately for you I did ask the Tampa FSDO office about 2 yrs ago and they didn?t really know. The person I spoke to asked another person in his office and he didn?t know either. And the day before, since it was after 5p, I decided to call the Oakland FSDO office and when he pointed out 91.319(f) I pointed out that it refers to a LSA upon him answering, ?good point, I need to look into it?. I asked an FAA examiner who has since retired and he said the great thing about the FAR?s is it only states what you can?t do and what you have to do. It doesn?t state what you can do. In his opinion he said, ?I don?t see why you can?t rent or lease it out.?.
I think all can agree the term operator isn?t well defined. I can see where operator can mean the owner of the plane and not just the person piloting the plane. If the FAA does mean operator to include the owner of the plane, than they should state it clearly by saying, ?owner and/or operator of the aircraft?. Not to be argumentative but this is definitely a valid argument. The fact is, is each FSDO office can interpret the regs as they see it and unfortunately they are judge and jury.


If it's not in writing with the Feds, it didn't happen. Oh, and its not interpretation without it in writing. The FAA chief counsel typically reserves this right. And on that note, they interpret logging hours as compensation (readily available via google search), and unless specifically noted in the CFR as an exempted commercial op, it isn't.

That said, none of that would stop me from adding a pilot as insured on my policy and letting them have fun in my plane (in fact, I do), I just like them that much!

Back to the topic at hand, this 'Jedi' is not the one the FAA is looking for.

THIS guy is who they are looking for..
https://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/new...t-school-owner-prison/e20Z88J9QYPKZb3nTieQMJ/
 
Unfortunately, many FAA employees do not fully understand ALL FARs. And their interpretation does not override Official FAA (Washington) interpretation. It's not their fault. The experimental world is a very small part of their job, and therefore has a pretty low priority.

From an FAA designee that works with experimental and light-sport every day, I can assure you that this subject has been bandied around many times over, and FAA (Washington) interpretation is that you may NOT use an experimental amateur-built or experimental light-sport aircraft commercially in any way.
 
Ditto. "Operational control" most definitely means PIC in my mind. Even the word "operate" alone is a stretch as a term for the plane's owner; throwing "control" in there makes it obvious. You don't "operate/control" an asset. You "possess/direct" it.

Well, FAR 1.1 doesn't define "operator", but it does define "operate":
Operate, with respect to aircraft, means use, cause to use or authorize to use aircraft, for the purpose (except as provided in ?91.13 of this chapter) of air navigation including the piloting of aircraft, with or without the right of legal control (as owner, lessee, or otherwise).
 
FAA (Washington) interpretation is that you may NOT use an experimental amateur-built or experimental light-sport aircraft commercially in any way.

Isn't the eventual resale of an E-AB commercial activity? How about entering a co-ownership agreement after first flight, i.e. a partial sale? How is that different than a rent-to-own agreement in spirit?
 
Just a different way to answer the original question (in the form of a rhetorical question):

Don't you think that if it was consistent with the regs to rent out RVs in the EAB category that someone would have done it by now?
 
The neat thing here is that none of has to guess - although we may very much not like what we find. Google “FAA legal interpretations, and you’ll find a search page where you type in terms to search for. Type “compensation” and hit the search button - I got about 163 recent legal interpretations from the FAA first one I clicked on is this:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...iotsjetteam - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

As it states, the FAA interprets the term “compensation”very broadly, and the logging of flight time is compensation if you don’t have to pay the operating costs for the aircraft - and my guess is that operating costs will be more than just gas and oil. So you better pay your share of all costs associated with borrowing the aircraft, or the mere fact of flying it as PIC might mean that you need a commercial certificate!

Nuts.....right? That’s a rabbit hole I sure don’t don’t want to go down - but it is, as Mel says, not the right of FSDO employees to interpret the rules; that belongs to the HQ legal team.

Tread carefully.....
 
So you better pay your share of all costs associated with borrowing the aircraft, or the mere fact of flying it as PIC might mean that you need a commercial

Hmmm. Thought I was following along until this. So you are saying everything is fine with lending your plane to your friend as long as he pays his share of all costs?

Erich
 
How do we change the FAA/CASA etc regs ?

Hi Paul,

So how do we change the REGS ?

I am new to aviation, I have only being flying for six years. I missed the 'Glory"days when Piper and Cessna would bring their new models to the Aero-clubs to buy.

I started my training in a Piper 140 that was 40 years old,stopped wasting money on that flying school and built an RV-10 and finished all of my training in my own aircraft. Completed my PIFR and use the aircraft in my own business. (Dynon / GTN750 )

My local Aeroclub proudly had its open day this weekend and had their fleet on display. The average age of the fleet is about 25years old. The usual suspects C172 C182 C310 C210 Piper Warriers etc. This is a very successful club here in Australia with lots of students doing their CPL. The most modern aircraft is a C182 with a G1000.

The newest aircraft at my home field are Slings (Dynon ), Tecnam (Dynon )
RV-10 ( Dynon ) and RV-14 (G3X ) all less than 4years old.

New C182 / Cirrus etc here in Australia easily pass the $900K - $1 Million AUD when an similar equiped RV-10 can be built for approx $400KAUD

There is an ever increasing number of late model IFR equipped Experimentals and a rapidly shrinking Certified market to choose from to hire.

CASA's own data shows that in 2016 48 % of all new single engine registered aircraft were Experimental and the trend is only increasing.

The EAA is doing an amazing job trying to bring the old fleet some new life with stc's for new panels and AoA's but the wheel turns very slowly.

I honestly don't know how to change the giant industry which is FAA /CASA and the like but in my lifetime so many other industries have changed quickly to adapt to what the consumer wants all in the space of a very short time (Uber AirBnB etc)

I get asked weekly "How do I hire a modern plane like this " (IFR 160+knt aircraft) and the reality is that there very few available or affordable options even available to the consumer.

The Brazilians seemed to have figured out a way to modernise their county's fleet,
https://www.flyer-aero.com/blank-jpqip
300+ RV-10's !!!!!

So HOW do we do the same ??

Let the revolution begin .....
 
The neat thing here is that none of has to guess - although we may very much not like what we find. Google ?FAA legal interpretations, and you?ll find a search page where you type in terms to search for. Type ?compensation? and hit the search button - I got about 163 recent legal interpretations from the FAA first one I clicked on is this:

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...iotsjetteam - (2013) legal interpretation.pdf

As it states, the FAA interprets the term ?compensation?very broadly, and the logging of flight time is compensation if you don?t have to pay the operating costs for the aircraft - and my guess is that operating costs will be more than just gas and oil. So you better pay your share of all costs associated with borrowing the aircraft, or the mere fact of flying it as PIC might mean that you need a commercial certificate!

Nuts.....right? That?s a rabbit hole I sure don?t don?t want to go down - but it is, as Mel says, not the right of FSDO employees to interpret the rules; that belongs to the HQ legal team.

Tread carefully.....

QUITE a rabbit hole! I was a non-equity partner on a plane years ago and my "ownership" of part of the plane was what got us around all this, I believe. In the same way that some stores (like Costco) or Utah bars have memberships, someone should come up with an agreement that gives at least temporary ownership of an aircraft (or the entity that owns it) when it's being used. I'm sure the right lawyer and the right legalese exists to get around this issue.
 
It certainly seems that there would be a large (legal) difference between me asking another pilot to, for instance, reposition my plane to another airport, with him using the repositioning flight to build time for a rating (my 'compensation' to him for the flight), and that same pilot *borrowing* my plane, with no benefit to me (therefore, nothing to 'compensate' for).

By the same logic, the owner of a spam can couldn't loan his plane to another pilot unless it had had a 100 hour inspection within the past 100 flight hours (to meet the rules for rental).
 
Just get the real friends guys. Won't be any need for these types of questions. Toss them the keys let them enjoy as you do :D
 
A flying club is also a possibility

It is pretty clear that a flying club can charge dues that are used towards the upkeep, maintenance, hangar fees etc for the plane. Both EAA and AOPA have pretty strong programs to help setting up a club.

The owner would have to think about if he wanted to do this or not. Not clear there is much in it for him or her, except a way to get the plane a few more hours while bringing in some money for the upkeep of the plane.

As Vlad said, probably the easiest if he or she gives you the keys, and you make sure you have insurance.

cheers

Geoff
 
Back
Top