Can a GA pilot with only PPL agree to ferry some random individual in exchange for sharing costs?

I think some of the examples here are just plain silly, and many of the argumentative type are just being, well.... argumentive.

Taking your daughter to San Diego for... whatever???? Give me a freakin break. That's an issue??

On the othe side someone said it's okay to charge as long as you don't do it too often???
What planet are you on???
 
What if your dog refuses to pay its pro-rata share?
 
Zeldman said:
Do the flight.

Keep your mouth closed on the subject.
Click to expand...

And this is where the slippery slope starts...

Next you'll be finding a way around another "bothersome" regulation. Either follow ALL the rules or, do us all a favor, and don't become a pilot.
 
Rykymus said:
I have no intention of charging anyone for gas, and just want to understand the rules better. So let me throw a few scenarios at all of you:

Scenarios 1-5
Click to expand...

Not a single one of these is likely to even raise anybody's eyebrows. You're talking about flying around with friends and family - that's exactly what a Private Pilot certificate is for. Go and do all these flights and sleep well and don't sweat the details. The rules are written to prevent people from setting up de-facto charter operations, not to force us to figure out whose account the money for fuel is coming from, mine or my wife's. I mean, a strict reading of the rules would prevent your mom from paying for the flight the first time you took her up after your checkride...
 
RussR said:
Not a single one of these is likely to even raise anybody's eyebrows. You're talking about flying around with friends and family - that's exactly what a Private Pilot certificate is for. Go and do all these flights and sleep well and don't sweat the details. The rules are written to prevent people from setting up de-facto charter operations, not to force us to figure out whose account the money for fuel is coming from, mine or my wife's. I mean, a strict reading of the rules would prevent your mom from paying for the flight the first time you took her up after your checkride...
Click to expand...

Wait! You are saying my mom was supposed to pay? :)
 
Lndwarrior said:
And this is where the slippery slope starts...

Next you'll be finding a way around another "bothersome" regulation. Either follow ALL the rules or, do us all a favor, and don't become a pilot.
Click to expand...

Nice personal attack bud.
 
The regulation wouldn't be so "bothersome" if it was written better. I don't know anyone who still speaks Latin.

Something like: Hey, if you're a private pilot and you carry a passenger that would like to help you pay for taking them on a flight, you can't take any more that what half the fuel and oil used on your flight costs.
 
RussR said:
Not a single one of these is likely to even raise anybody's eyebrows. You're talking about flying around with friends and family - that's exactly what a Private Pilot certificate is for. Go and do all these flights and sleep well and don't sweat the details. The rules are written to prevent people from setting up de-facto charter operations, not to force us to figure out whose account the money for fuel is coming from, mine or my wife's. I mean, a strict reading of the rules would prevent your mom from paying for the flight the first time you took her up after your checkride...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, people keep trying to find loopholes and ways around the intent of the rules in order to set up de-facto charter operations and such. That's how we end up with Mom not being able to pay for a flight.
 
Simple solution. Have your passengers pay in cash and have them pinky promise they wont tell anyone. Think of all the money insaved you from startimg that expensive airline. Your welcome!!
 
Treat your PPL like a driver's license... When would you have somebody chip in for gas or buy lunch when you drive them? And if you're flying them JUST because you have a plane and can fly it, then don't ask for anything.

Well, nevermind, there may be just as many people who would have their mom pay to drive her to see the grandkids! "Sorry Ma, have you seen gas prices these days?!"
 
If I fly inverted the whole time and the bill comes to $66 dollars can I have them pay half of 99$?
 
The FAA doesn't care about this nearly as much as posters on pilot forums.

Can someone name one person ever disciplined for supposedly violating the purposely vague "common purpose" language in a simple, informal pro-rata share flight between aquantices?

The FAA is seeking to stop organized faux charter ops, not you taking your neighbor sightseeing or you giving him a ride somewhere for a cost split. If Mom wants to pay the fuel bill, the FAA is not coming after you. The reg is broad because it has to be to target the something specific they really care about.

I await my sanctimonious shaming.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Can you explain the nos? I'd answer yes to all those scenarios.
Click to expand...
and for the record, i agree, i doubt you'd get in trouble. but if you go do these things, and then go sit down with the FSDO over coffee and say, hey, last weekend I XYZ, I suspect you'll not be having a great afternoon
 
Personally I wish they'd make a category that would enable flight sharing websites. How about this:

1) Require a commercial pilot certificate and an instrument rating to go more than 50 miles.
2) Require 100 hour inspections.
3) Six seats or less.

At that point you should be allowed to "hold out" to share pro-rata flight costs.

Because only pro-rata, it saves costs but doesn't make it a for profit venture. Even though I'm sure many would do it for time building...

Kinda 1/2 way to 135. Call it part 67 1/2.

Might encourage people to get the advanced training that would overall enhance safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Timbeck2 said:
The regulation wouldn't be so "bothersome" if it was written better. I don't know anyone who still speaks Latin.

Something like: Hey, if you're a private pilot and you carry a passenger that would like to help you pay for taking them on a flight, you can't take any more that what half the fuel and oil used on your flight costs.
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I read it. If you do this, no matter how vague the "common purpose" might be, or who's idea it was to fly, or whether you would go or not on your own, I don't think you'll be running afoul of what the FAA is trying to prevent, which is running a commercial business for profit. It's still costing you money to fly, just not as much as it would have had you flown alone.

Bonchie said:
The FAA doesn't care about this nearly as much as posters on pilot forums.

Can someone name one person ever disciplined for supposedly violating the purposely vague "common purpose" language in a simple, informal pro-rata share flight between aquantices?

The FAA is seeking to stop organized faux charter ops, not you taking your neighbor sightseeing or you giving him a ride somewhere for a cost split. If Mom wants to pay the fuel bill, the FAA is not coming after you. The reg is broad because it has to be to target the something specific they really care about.

I await my sanctimonious shaming.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.

The problem is that the term "common purpose" has no succinct definition here. It could mean anything from "You're both going there for the same reason," to "one of you really needs to go there, and the other just feels like tagging along." And how the hell is the FAA supposed to prove that I only fly there because someone wanted me to fly them there and split the cost? All I have to do is say "I've always wanted to visit that city." There's my common purpose. It's a free country, and I have an airplane. I can fly there whenever the hell I want, and I don't have to justify my purpose to anyone.

Personally, I don't see a problem with someone using this to decrease the costs of time building. (I'm speaking morally, not legally.) I think it's entirely possible for the FAA to write a rule that will accomplish their goals without unduly restricting those of us who are not trying to run a faux charter operation. I think the FAA just likes having their gray areas, as it gives them more wiggle-room, and therefore more power.
 
Rykymus said:
I have no intention of charging anyone for gas, and just want to understand the rules better. So let me throw a few scenarios at all of you:

Scenario 1
My daughter wants to go to San Diego and stay for a week. I offer to fly her, so that I can make my first IFR flight to San Diego IFR for the first time, and shoot an approach into KSAN. I will drop her off and depart within the hour. We both "want" to go to San Diego, but not for the same reasons, and it wasn't "my" idea to go. Furthermore, I likely would not fly to San Diego solo just for the experience, but she doesn't want to drive, so I decide I "want" to go.

Scenario 2:
Same as above, but I decide that my official "mission" will be to visit some dinner I saw on "Diners, Drive-ins, and Dives", before returning home. Again, I likely would not make the trip had she not said she wanted to go to San Diego.

Scenario 3:
My wife wants to go to a mega-mall in some city an hour's flight away. I have no interest in going, but she doesn't want to drive. I don't have the money for the trip in my "flying budget", so she says we can afford to pay for the gas out of the household budget, because we didn't go out to eat so many times this month. The flight was not my idea, and I wouldn't be flying to that city on my own, and if she cancels, I'm not going.

Scenario 4:
I fly to Monterey at least a few times per month for various reasons. (A 1hr hop.) To go to my favorite eateries; to visit friends; for doctor's appointments; and sometimes just to shoot approaches in IMC. A friend knows I make these flights, and says he wants to tag along, and be dropped off to visit family. (He will find his own way back.) It would be "my" idea to go, and will be going whether he goes or not.

Scenario 5:
A friend and his wife want to go to Half Moon Bay for lunch at a restaurant within walking distance of the airport. They know that I fly there to eat on occasion, and ask if I am going anytime soon. I have no immediate plans to do so, but am more than willing to go any day they like. They pick a day, and I decide, "Hey, I want to go to Half Moon Bay for lunch," on that same day. Since it is close by (unlike San Diego) I would likely go even if they cancelled. But it was not originally "my" idea to go on "that" particular day.

Conclusion?
It seems like maybe the FAA's idea of "common purpose" is "It was my idea to go" or "I was already planning on going", AND "I would go with or without the other party." Both are gray areas that I don't think I would want to venture into unless I REALLY trusted my passengers not to rat me out. (And I don't trust ANYONE that much.)
Click to expand...
If we can't do the above we may as well shred our tickets and airplanes. They are useless in that case.
 
Bonchie said:
The FAA doesn't care about this nearly as much as posters on pilot forums.

Can someone name one person ever disciplined for supposedly violating the purposely vague "common purpose" language in a simple, informal pro-rata share flight between aquantices?

The FAA is seeking to stop organized faux charter ops, not you taking your neighbor sightseeing or you giving him a ride somewhere for a cost split. If Mom wants to pay the fuel bill, the FAA is not coming after you. The reg is broad because it has to be to target the something specific they really care about.

I await my sanctimonious shaming.
Click to expand...
Exactly...
Even though I'm 50, my mom likes to frequently give me money...I once would refuse on the grounds that I make about 4 times more than she ever did, but it made her sad when I would refuse, so I now always take the money....$100 here, $200 there...
My mom loves to fly. Every time we fly together, my mom gives me money. I suppose someone could argue that I'm being paid to fly her, but they would be wrong. My mom gives me money when I drive to her house. My mom even gives me money when SHE drives to MY house. So, I'm not "getting around the rules", and I'm not worried about it either. See how easy that is?
 
Bonchie said:
The FAA doesn't care about this nearly as much as posters on pilot forums.

Can someone name one person ever disciplined for supposedly violating the purposely vague "common purpose" language in a simple, informal pro-rata share flight between aquantices?

The FAA is seeking to stop organized faux charter ops, not you taking your neighbor sightseeing or you giving him a ride somewhere for a cost split. If Mom wants to pay the fuel bill, the FAA is not coming after you. The reg is broad because it has to be to target the something specific they really care about.

I await my sanctimonious shaming.
Click to expand...

I'm going to say part of it is the level of acquaintanceship ;) and whether there was an accident. We don't get to see all the FAA's enforcement actions. Most never have a public viewing.

But, I think I agree with you. Let's see. Google is cool - this is a post I wrote on another forum almost 12 years ago. I've definitely been called sanctimonious :D, but have never been shamed :(.

Here's the problem. There is a (IMO) =necessary= grey area between what is allowed and what is not allowed. Necessary because how creative we can be in trying to get around the rules.

Ultimately I think the =real= rule the FAA uses is the "duck" rule: If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck." Or, if you prefer, the legal test for whether something is obscene: "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

In the 2-pilot scenarios, you can stand on your head and twist your neck around like in the Exorcist, but it's still tough to make it look even remotely like a commercial flight. The 2-pilot scenarios don't look or sound or act anything like the "duck" of carrying passengers for hire. It barely even looks like carrying passengers to begin with.

But whenever a non-pilot comes on board, the dynamic changes. Keep in mind that the general rule is that a private pilot cannot receive =any= compensation for flying. the shared cost exception is just that- an exception, and one that is very limited. Cross the line in a situation that gives the FAA a reason to look at it and =bam=.

That doesn't mean to walk in fear of the FAA. There are some really stupid scenarios I've seen in these discussions, like whether you can fly your sister to her best friend's wedding if you're not going yourself and have her share the expenses (or even pay all of them). Yeah sure, maybe it's =technically= outside of the limits of the exception, but really. I can't imagine worrying about that one. The other good ones are those where the passenger buys lunch. Puh-leeze!

None of my posts are meant to tell anyone what they should do. They are only meant to try to explain what I think the rules are and the way I think the FAA approaches the question. After that, for things that are in that grey area, it's up to you to make your own decision about where it falls and what level of risk of being wrong you are willing to accept​

..or, as I ended up liking better, "since ignorance is not a defense anyway, it's probably best to try to understand a rule before deciding it's ok to break it."
 
@BoulderBill let me share a couple things that I've done (with my PPL) that may or may not be similar.

1 - My father wanted a really good conch chowder, so I told him that Key West has some of the best and we made a plan to fly down to Key West for the afternoon to get some. We would split the costs.
2 - Had a guy that I knew from EAA that wanted to get some breakfast so, flew over to KGIF for some of the largest pancakes I've ever seen in my life. Split the costs.
3 - Mother wanted to visit her friend on the east coast but didn't want to drive. My son hadn't ever been there so we planned a trip and I think this time I covered all the costs.

I will say that in all of the above cases I flew my own plane. However even before I owned my own plane and after I sold it, I did a few flights with friends at my cost or with split costs. Lunch runs, or just sight seeing down the beach.

I could go on and on...I think where it gets murky is when you start throwing out terms like "ferry" and "transport". Those are buzz words that the FAA will pounce on. The commercial rating doesn't make things easier, it just opens a few extra doors for earning cash. Now that I have my CPL and instrument rating I would still choose to handle the situations above the same way I did with my PPL.

It's tricky explaining things at times to people who aren't pilots. My parents for example, love going up and they want to pay me for the full cost, but I've had to outright refuse (to the point where they sometimes got annoyed at me), only accepting half or less of the costs. When I got my CPL my father said, good, now I can pay you for all the costs to which I said...nope!

If you ever do get as far as a commercial license, you'll learn that what you say and how you say it can mean the difference between illegal and legal. "Holding out" for example.

Take these two situations:
  • A guy you know who owns a plane is hanging around the FBO and wants to move his plane to the east coast and drive back. He doesn't approach you, but you walk up and offer to do it. <illegal>
  • A guy you know who owns a plane is hanging around the FBO and wants to move his plane to the east coast and drive back. He approaches you and asks you to fly him and his plane over there and drive you back. <legal>
Still, what good is a plane if you can't enjoy it and GO places? Especially in the company of people that you enjoy?
 
BoulderBill said:
So it sounds like my scheme is a no go. And now I have to start an airline. I'm fine with that.

[
Click to expand...

A lot of 'private pilots' actually hold commercial pilot certificates. A commercial pilot can do exactly what you want. You just pay him or her to fly you from A to B in your airplane, or an airplane YOU rent.

If you fly in his airplane then he has to have meet some more involved rules that apply to aircraft charter.
 
Kritchlow said:
I think some of the examples here are just plain silly, and many of the argumentative type are just being, well.... argumentive.

Taking your daughter to San Diego for... whatever???? Give me a freakin break. That's an issue??

On the othe side someone said it's okay to charge as long as you don't do it too often???
What planet are you on???
Click to expand...

The Weekend Warrior All Knowing Expert Planet. Enhanced with the Required Equipment of an iPad app with a moving map so they don't get lost.
 
gsengle said:
Personally I wish they'd make a category that would enable flight sharing websites. How about this:

1) Require a commercial pilot certificate and an instrument rating to go more than 50 miles.
2) Require 100 hour inspections.
3) Six seats or less.

At that point you should be allowed to "hold out" to share pro-rata flight costs.

Because only pro-rata, it saves costs but doesn't make it a for profit venture. Even though I'm sure many would do it for time building...

Kinda 1/2 way to 135. Call it part 67 1/2.

Might encourage people to get the advanced training that would overall enhance safety.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Keep reducing the level of safety in the airspace. No recurrent training, no check rides? All you have to do is read the level of incompetence shown daily on this web site to see how dangerous this can be. You can't truly believe having such pilots holding out as you suggest is safe. Hope the FAA maintains their position on refusing to allow such websites.
 
KA550 said:
Keep reducing the level of safety in the airspace. No recurrent training, no check rides? All you have to do is read the level of incompetence shown daily on this web site to see how dangerous this can be. You can't truly believe having such pilots holding out as you suggest is safe. Hope the FAA maintains their position on refusing to allow such websites.
Click to expand...

It's a balance. Just one idea to make flight sharing possible. There is a BFR for such pilots. And second class medicals. And I wouldn't let em profit so it wouldn't be big business. And they would have a commercial rating. This could be a well needed boost for GA. Public should also be told that these flights don't adhere to 135 or 121 standards, in laypersons terms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Zeldman said:
Nice personal attack bud.
Click to expand...

When, as a pilot, you make the suggestion to knowingly violate the FAA regulations and "don't tell anyone" you are giving advice that hurts general aviation in general. So, yes, if you are going to advise people to violate the FAA regulations, then I am going to call you out on this.

What you do in the privacy of your own airplane is your business. When you make such a suggestion on a public forum you are opening yourself up to personal attacks.

Call it what you like. I wouldn't disagree that this is a personal attack.
 
Last edited:
There is always a way to bend the regulations. Simple, become an expert in many areas, have the person hire you to do some consulting at the destination. Now you have common purpose, you pay 100% of the flight so there are no questions and he pays you a consulting fee for the work you did at the destination.

This is 100% cool, unless there is an incident, then who knows.

Jim
 
I've been avoiding this because I don't want to get the rule quoters into an uproar.
You are in an airplane.
No one is watching you.
You can do any damn thing you want.
Don't get caught.
Don't get dead. And for crying out loud just shut up about it.
Don't talk about it, don't ask questions about it, and don't post about it on public groups or social media.

PS: If you are doing something stupid, and you do get dead, plan on doing it where you won't kill some poor sap on the ground.
PPS. If you aren't smart enough to figure this stuff out for yourself, please, PLEASE burn your medical and your pilot's license and go find something else to do.

I think that covers everything.

See? This is what you get when you aggravate a crotchety, cantankerous old man, who is stuck inside because of the weather.
 
Shepherd said:
I've been avoiding this because I don't want to get the rule quoters into an uproar.
You are in an airplane.
No one is watching you.
You can do any damn thing you want.
Don't get caught.
Don't get dead. And for crying out loud just shut up about it.
Don't talk about it, don't ask questions about it, and don't post about it on public groups or social media.

PS: If you are doing something stupid, and you do get dead, plan on doing it where you won't kill some poor sap on the ground.
PPS. If you aren't smart enough to figure this stuff out for yourself, please, PLEASE burn your medical and your pilot's license and go find something else to do.

I think that covers everything.

See? This is what you get when you aggravate a crotchety, cantankerous old man, who is stuck inside because of the weather.
Click to expand...
YES! Finally common sense intervenes! Thank you!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top