kentb

kentb

Well Known Member
Is it legal to collect money from manufactures by placing advertising on an experimental airplane?

I am thinking in terms of sponsors for a flight.

Kent
 
And sometimes just formally asking the the question can lead to interesting results...

Case in point: Mangiamele (Essentially, seems you cannot use the incidental to business rule for reimbursement if you carry passengers or property...but IANAL)
 
Yes perfectly legal.
Im not sure why folks get confused by this.
You can take all the money you want flying EAB aircraft.
You cant take comp for passengers for hire. You cant take comp for hauling property. Past that, its pretty wide open with very few exceptions not worth mentioning as it just adds confusion.
If someone want to pay you money to fly by, no problem. Pay you for air shows, no problem. Pay you to fly around with advertising paint on your plane. No problem. Pay you for your flying your plane in any which a way shape or fashion. No problem.
You can absolutely use your plane for commercial purposes. Just not the 2 listed above.
 
FAR 91.319

? 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.

(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental certificate?

(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued; or

(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
(snip)
Click to expand...

And I'm pretty sure there are even exceptions to this rule, for instance an E/AB airplane can be used to train in type, such as for doing flight check outs.

Go for it.
 
Private vs. Commercial

Kahuna said:
If someone want to pay you money to fly by, no problem. Pay you for air shows, no problem. Pay you to fly around with advertising paint on your plane. No problem. Pay you for your flying your plane in any which a way shape or fashion. No problem.
You can absolutely use your plane for commercial purposes. Just not the 2 listed above.
Click to expand...

I assume this is intended to apply only to commercial pilots? Private pilots specifically are not allowed to accept compensation for their flying, with a few exceptions (FAR 61.113).
 
Hauling things

Alan Carroll said:
I assume this is intended to apply only to commercial pilots? Private pilots specifically are not allowed to accept compensation for their flying, with a few exceptions (FAR 61.113).
Click to expand...

As Kahuna said, it is all about hauling things and people for money, not about selling ad space.

FAR 61.113:
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Alan Carroll said:
I assume this is intended to apply only to commercial pilots? Private pilots specifically are not allowed to accept compensation for their flying, with a few exceptions (FAR 61.113).
Click to expand...

Having someone pay to advertise on your airplane has nothing to do with needing a commercial pilot's license. They are paying for advertising space. They aren't paying you to fly the airplane. They pay for the ad on your plane whether it flies or not, whether you're flying it or someone else is flying it.

The pilot is not accepting compensation for anything. The owner of the airplane is accepting compensation for having the ad on the airplane.
 
Absolutely correct Craig. Just like the many people, who own what are considered "eye catching" cars and have ads put on them. They are selling the ad space. They don't have commercial driving licenses.

My partner and I have considered it as a way to pay for a paint job, but don't have any connections and don't perform at airshows, so opportunity is limited.
 
Last edited:
craigvince said:
Having someone pay to advertise on your airplane has nothing to do with needing a commercial pilot's license. They are paying for advertising space. They aren't paying you to fly the airplane. They pay for the ad on your plane whether it flies or not, whether you're flying it or someone else is flying it.

The pilot is not accepting compensation for anything. The owner of the airplane is accepting compensation for having the ad on the airplane.
Click to expand...

Actually I was referring to the airshow example that Kahuna gave. My reading of 61.113 is that a private pilot could not be paid for doing an airshow perfomance, unless its was "incidental" to some other business (for example he was actually being paid to sell airplanes). Do I have this wrong?
 
craigvince said:
The pilot is not accepting compensation for anything. The owner of the airplane is accepting compensation for having the ad on the airplane.
Click to expand...

However, the wording in the experimental operating limitations says "No person may operate this aircraft for carrying persons or property for compensation or hire." I would read that to mean that the airplane can't carry persons or property for compensation or hire, regardless of who is getting compensated.

The legality of paid advertising on an experimental would seem to rely on the idea that ads are not "property", which makes sense to me (but I'm not a lawyer). You do see lots of ads stuck on experimental airplanes and they don't seem to be getting busted by the feds.
 
I was only addressing the PLANE concern raised, not the pilot.
Its the plane that has restrictions based on its Op Lims.
Pilot issues are by regs.
 
Alan Carroll said:
Actually I was referring to the airshow example that Kahuna gave. My reading of 61.113 is that a private pilot could not be paid for doing an airshow perfomance, unless its was "incidental" to some other business (for example he was actually being paid to sell airplanes). Do I have this wrong?
Click to expand...

You are correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.