Patey's rescue couple stranded in LA by airlines.

I believe the PPL execution of this would hinge around having common purpose in being at each place.

If I am at Sedona airport and someone approaches me asking for a ride to Goodyear, a place where I am going, I don’t see the violation of taking this person along.

If I am watching news articles to actively look for airports with stranded passengers and then arranging my situation to accommodate then this is where I believe the difficulty begins.
 
Rgbeard said:
I believe the PPL execution of this would hinge around having common purpose in being at each place.

If I am at Sedona airport and someone approaches me asking for a ride to Goodyear, a place where I am going, I don’t see the violation of taking this person along.

If I am watching news articles to actively look for airports with stranded passengers and then arranging my situation to accommodate then this is where I believe the difficulty begins.
Click to expand...
As long as compensation doesn’t change hands, would it still be a problem?
 
Rgbeard said:
I believe the PPL execution of this would hinge around having common purpose in being at each place.
Click to expand...

Common purpose only refers to the expense sharing exception in 61.113. If you're not sharing expenses, common purpose is irrelevant.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-142.pdf

Bottom of page 6, the conclusion is: "As the passenger chose the destination and the private pilot does not have a purpose of his own to be in the other city at that time, this is an example of a situation where no common purpose exists. Therefore, expense sharing would not be allowed under § 61.113(c)."

Note that it doesn't say the flight isn't allowed, it says you can't share expenses because you cannot receive compensation.
 
According to the FAA “goodwill” is compensation.
 
As long as there was no paid compensation (flat out commercial op) or pro rata share expected without a common purpose, there would not be any issues with this flight. The only possible exception would be goodwill as compensation but that would be a stretch. There would have to be an expectation of a later benefit to the Pateys. I don’t see one.
 
But I guess future good karma might be compensation. Yeah, call the FSFO and claim that.
 
It just sounds like the kind of thing Patey would do. Good for him.
 
So when I log that flight, that becomes a compensation too?
 
Dana said:
It just sounds like the kind of thing Patey would do. Good for him.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about them beyond a few YouTube videos about their monster bush planes but they seem like pretty decent guys. And this flight seems to confirm it.
 
JScarry said:
According to the FAA “goodwill” is compensation.
Click to expand...

if you apply it in the context you’re implying, you will recognize you generate goodwill every time you carry a passenger. In your model. 61.113 forces you to fly solo.
 
JScarry said:
According to the FAA “goodwill” is compensation.
Click to expand...

Goodwill applies if you provide free flights to someone in anticipation of gaining future aviation business from that party.
If you are in the business of providing air transportation, you can't have one of your pilots fly someone for 'free' hoping that they sign a block contract for charters.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
Goodwill applies if you provide free flights to someone in anticipation of gaining future business from that party.
Click to expand...

Emphasis on the expectation of future benefit. If you expect nothing, then no goodwill is incurred.
 
bflynn said:
Emphasis on the expectation of future benefit. If you expect nothing, then no goodwill is incurred.
Click to expand...

Yes. And it has only been applied to aviation companies. If a vendor sends their jet to pick me and my team up for a product demonstration, that generation of goodwill is a legitimate business purpose for the flight. The pilot has to be commercial etc. but there is no compensation created out of the prospect of future business. This 'goodwill' ruling grew out of someone trying to convince a health district that hiring his company was a way to fulfill their mission in a cost efficient way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top