Lending one's aeroplane to somebody (G or N)?

[IO540]

On the face of it I cannot see a legal problem with this (in either G-reg or N-reg context) if no money (or some other favour) changes hands, but I vaguely recall reading somewhere that the CAA didn't like it and decided that some sort of valuable consideration is involved....

[Whirlybird]

There's a recent thread on Rotorheads about this whole concept of "valuable consideration". Some people seem to think that free flying equals valuable consideration, ie is equivalent to being paid. Sounds like complete nonsense to me, but what do I know.

What's the legal position? I'm not sure anyone knows. Perhaps you should note that Flying Lawyer sensibly omitted to post on the Rotorheads thread, despite being called on in several posts..

[PPRuNe Pop]

An owner is at liberty to lend you his aircraft whenever he wishes - providing you don't pay him for the privilege. Mind you, you should offer to pay for the fuel you use I suppose, its up to him.

[gcolyer]

"Valuable Consideration" How mad is that!

So if you borrowed the aircraft at an ultra low mate rate of free and paid for the fuel is that "Valuable Consideration"

If so is the simple way out of this bunging the owner £20 for aircraft rental and asking for a reciept? But this would then mean the aircraft would have to have a Transport catagory airworthiness certificate.

[flyingfemme]

I've lent to friends......mostly visiting from abroad. They return the favour when I visit them....

None of us would be renting if that weren't the case so nobody is losing out.

[bookworm]

There's a recent thread on Rotorheads about this whole concept of "valuable consideration". Some people seem to think that free flying equals valuable consideration, ie is equivalent to being paid. Sounds like complete nonsense to me, but what do I know.
What's the legal position? I'm not sure anyone knows. Perhaps you should note that Flying Lawyer sensibly omitted to post on the Rotorheads thread, despite being called on in several posts..

I agree with the distinction that you made on that thread.

If "free flying" means "if you do this ferry job for me today then I'll let you have 3 hours free next week instead of paying for the hours" then that's valuable consideration.

But there is no presumption in the law that a pilot must pay the costs associated with a flight to avoid valuable consideration going in the opposite direction. If a pilot does pay for flying, either to a club/school or to a co-ownership group, there is valuable consideration flowing from the pilot to the recipient. If the pilot pays nothing for the flying and nothing is given or promised to him in return for making the flight, then there's no valuable consideration in respect of the flight.

[shortstripper]

Gee thanks mate! ... when do you want me to pick it up? :E

SS