"Common purpose" and taking your friends up

I'm certainly not the one writing the rules, but it would seem to me that if "sightseeing" is a legitimate business model, it should also be a reasonable use of a personal aircraft. As such I cant see how taking friends sightseeing could be seen as not a common purpose. If you're both seeing the sights, that would be the shared purpose.
 
I think the issue is the purpose of your passenger friend is, "to sight see," while your purpose is, "to fly your passenger." That's not a common purpose. Both of you going to place X is a shared purpose if you both have reasons to go to X.
 
But what if you both want to sightsee? I love sightseeing as much as anyone else. Why is my purpose different if we are both enjoying the sights?

The only difference I could see is if your friend came to you and asked you to take them sightseeing and offered to pay, vs. you asking if they wanna join you in some sightseeing. Still a very fuzzy line if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Flying is illegal. They just choose who they will bust for doing it. Same as driving a car or smoking pot. There is no way to rule law abiding pilots, therefore we can't have law abiding pilots.
 
StinkBug said:
But what if you both want to sightsee? I love sightseeing as much as anyone else. Why is my purpose different if we are both enjoying the sights?

The only difference I could see is if your friend came to you and asked you to take them sightseeing and offered to pay, vs. you asking if they wanna join you in some sightseeing. Still a very fuzzy line if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Sightseeing is fine. Go fly.

Here is a flyer from the FAA which spells out what you can and can't do.

http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010-ComeFlyWithMe.pdf
 
StinkBug said:
This all seems more than a little blurry to me.

Catalina Island is a popular tourist destination where people from So Cal like to visit on the weekends. I regularly take my boat over there with friends. They also have an airport. If a couple friends and I decided to fly over for the day because it's faster than the 5 hour sail, would we not have a common purpose? Seems like some of you are splitting hairs on what the common purpose is. If we both want to go some place, but I'm logging hours does that suddenly make it no longer a common purpose, even though we're both going to the same destination to be tourists together?

Seems that if this were the case there wouldn't be a rule allowing a pro-rata share at all, and it would simply be written as "no compensation at all, period"
Click to expand...
There's nothing wrong with that trip to Catalina as you describe it.

The rule is pretty straighforward in 90% of the situations in which it's used. There is a little fudge built along the edges for the purpose of capturing those who try to get around the rule with a [best John Lovitz sleazy lawyer voice] "Hmmm. Well, if I do it this way.... yeah, that's the ticket!"

Most of the confusion is produced by people trying to find the edges and pretending the 10% fudge is 90% of the rule. It's one of those Reductio Ad Absurdum arguments that use an extreme application of a rule to make the whole thing sound silly.
 
StinkBug said:
I'm certainly not the one writing the rules, but it would seem to me that if "sightseeing" is a legitimate business model, it should also be a reasonable use of a personal aircraft.
Click to expand...
That sounds more like the opposite argument than you are trying to make:

If something is a legitimate "business" model, well, that's exactly what the rules want you to avoid. All of air transportation for hire is a "legitimate business model."

Unless, of course, you actually are making the argument that private pilots should be able to do what the more heavily regulated carriers and charters do.
 
Here's the money quote from the FAA news letter referenced above:

Asking your flying buddies if they want to split
the costs of flying to Oshkosh with you and flying
with friends to that resort on the coast you’re all
going to share and sharing the flying costs—those
would be okay. However, sharing expenses with
a passenger on a flight to a place you would not
otherwise be flying to would be a problem.
Click to expand...

If you and your friend feel a hankering for looking at the pretty girls in poodle skirts at the Brenham Airport Diner while you enjoy a burger and grade landings from your table, then go right ahead and share costs.

If, on the other hand, your friend is some kind of rich Silicon Valley Glass hole and offers to pay all your expenses to fly him to Burning Man, then, in the word of Mr. Nixon, you could do that, but it would be wrong.
 
midlifeflyer said:
That sounds more like the opposite argument than you are trying to make:

If something is a legitimate "business" model, well, that's exactly what the rules want you to avoid. All of air transportation for hire is a "legitimate business model."

Unless, of course, you actually are making the argument that private pilots should be able to do what the more heavily regulated carriers and charters do.
Click to expand...

I was trying to figure out how to word that correctly. What I was trying to say is that if sightseeing is seen as a legitimate use for an aircraft, than it should be a legitimate use regardless of if there is money involved or not. Sharing expenses is not the same as for profit or for hire, which is the whole reason for the pro-rata wording in the rule. The purpose of a flight can be to get somewhere, but it can also be to see something or simply for the pleasure of flying. Saying one is a common purpose and the other is not seems more like a personal judgement rather than a rational argument.

Also I think for the purposes of this discussion we can all assume that nobody is actually trying to MAKE money by flying. We are all just trying to make a somewhat confusing set of rules a bit more clear so that we can stay within them. I think it's very clear that we cant let someone pay for the whole flight, the question is when it is and isn't ok for them to pay THEIR SHARE of the flight.
 
Last edited:
midlifeflyer said:
There's nothing wrong with that trip to Catalina as you describe it.

The rule is pretty straighforward in 90% of the situations in which it's used. There is a little fudge built along the edges for the purpose of capturing those who try to get around the rule with a [best John Lovitz sleazy lawyer voice] "Hmmm. Well, if I do it this way.... yeah, that's the ticket!"
Click to expand...

That's true of 90% of the regulations, I find. It can be fun to find the edges, but I cringe when I see threads of pilots actually flaunting them as they are the reason we have the crazy regs that try to capture all those edges. _Most_ of the time, understanding and following the intent of the rules will be good, but it's good to know the funky letters of the law, too :)
 
StinkBug said:
I was trying to figure out how to word that correctly. What I was trying to say is that if sightseeing is seen as a legitimate use for an aircraft, than it should be a legitimate use regardless of if there is money involved or not. Sharing expenses is not the same as for profit or for hire, which is the whole reason for the pro-rata wording in the rule. The purpose of a flight can be to get somewhere, but it can also be to see something or simply for the pleasure of flying. Saying one is a common purpose and the other is not seems more like a personal judgement rather than a rational argument.
Click to expand...
You could say that sightseeing is an enjoyable activity which you would engage in whether or not you had a passenger. What they don't want you doing is taking people sightseeing and having them pay their share when you would not have gone on your own. I have no idea how they could, or would even want to try to establish intent unless you advertised or if someone complained.
 
StinkBug said:
I was trying to figure out how to word that correctly. What I was trying to say is that if sightseeing is seen as a legitimate use for an aircraft, than it should be a legitimate use regardless of if there is money involved or not. Sharing expenses is not the same as for profit or for hire, which is the whole reason for the pro-rata wording in the rule. The purpose of a flight can be to get somewhere, but it can also be to see something. Saying one is a common purpose and the other is not seems a bit judgmental and subjective.
Click to expand...

I agree, but lets re-wind things a bit. Common Purpose is not even in the FAR's and I have yet to see the purported Chief Counsel (again? :sad: ) interpretations on this not-in-the-regs term. Also, a quick look at the regs seems to make things fairly cut and dried for me. RED COMMENTS are my observations about "Joe" the local Private Pilot who also owns his own Construction Company

§ 61.113 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Pilot in command.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(NO) Hey Joe, how much would you charge to fly my wife in your Warrior to her Aunt's house, just tell me a price, she needs to see her Aunt ASAP.
(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.

(YES) Joe, this is Larry Smith, owner of Happy Concrete. Can you come meet with us and we talk about that new project ? It is last minute, maybe you can fly your plane in and we pick you up. Thanks
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
(d) A private pilot may act as pilot in command of a charitable, nonprofit, or community event flight described in § 91.146, if the sponsor and pilot comply with the requirements of § 91.146.
(e) A private pilot may be reimbursed for aircraft operating expenses that are directly related to search and location operations, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees, and the operation is sanctioned and under the direction and control of:
(1) A local, State, or Federal agency; or
(2) An organization that conducts search and location operations.
(f) A private pilot who is an aircraft salesman and who has at least 200 hours of logged flight time may demonstrate an aircraft in flight to a prospective buyer.
(g) A private pilot who meets the requirements of § 61.69 may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft towing a glider or unpowered ultralight vehicle.
(h) A private pilot may act as pilot in command for the purpose of conducting a production flight test in a light-sport aircraft intended for certification in the light-sport category under § 21.190 of this chapter, provided that—
Click to expand...

Jaybird180 said:
Serious question and not necessarily directed at Ron:

Male pilot takes a female passenger for a joyride with the expectation that he will later get sex.

Is it FAA/ Chief Counsel legal? Also, is it prostitution?
Click to expand...

Uh, in the "really dude?" column, but:

Why would this be prostitution ? Is she charging YOU for sex ? Did you agree that you would pay money or exchange something of value, specifically for a sex act, ? The person CHARGING is the prostitute.

If you take a girl for a ride on the back of your motorcycle, with the expectation you will get sex, is that prostitution ? Why would aviation be any different ?

Do we need a Chief Counsel ruling/interpretation on everything we do now, before we pull the plane out of the hangar ?

Why is this so hard, the OP question ? If we are using common purpose (the not-in-the-FAR's-term) , I hope everyone is bright enough that if someone says "Hey Larry, I need to fly to Mayberry to sign some legal documents ASAP, can you take me? I will pay expenses"

Your answer is "Well, Jim, what is that good BBQ is Mayberry ? Old Time BBQ ? I think we both want to go there for lunch, yes ? "

"You know what Larry, I sure do and I am hungry. Lets head to the airport"
 
I think one could argue that buying her a nice dinner and drinks with the expectation of sex is at least logically prostitution.

But I can tell you that Morton's Steakhouse will get you a lot more play than Burger King (e.g. don't expect more than a hand job if you take her up in a beater C150 still with the original interior.)
 
Timmer said:
That's true of 90% of the regulations, I find. It can be fun to find the edges, but I cringe when I see threads of pilots actually flaunting them as they are the reason we have the crazy regs that try to capture all those edges. _Most_ of the time, understanding and following the intent of the rules will be good, but it's good to know the funky letters of the law, too :)
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Searching the edges can definitely by an enjoyable activity. Some, though, seem to lose the bigger picture in the process.
 
StinkBug said:
Sharing expenses is not the same as for profit or for hire, which is the whole reason for the pro-rata wording in the rule.
Click to expand...
"Profit" has never been an issue of whether something is for compensation or hire. I have known small Part 135 operators who had loses over an extended period of time, especially during the recession. Real losses, not just paper ones. Whatever small business they got barely paid the cost of fuel, let alone produce a profit for the operation.

The issue isn't profit, but receipt of something valuable in exchange for a flight - compensation.

Try looking at is from a completely different point of view: the general "no compensation" rule has two primary purposes:
• protection of the public who doesn't know an aileron from a ailment and thinks a stall is when an engine quits.
• protection of commercial pilots and legitimate operators who invested time and money and effort to meet the higher safety requirements

That second one is a big one. The last thing a business needs is the ability of some joker to legally undercut their pricing because he has no profit motive and is just interested in defraying some of his costs.

So 61.113 has a blanket and broad "no compensation" rule. It's the rule that's broad. The exceptions are the piece that very limited.

It's no coincidence that many (some would say most) folks busted under the compensation rules were "turned in" by legitimate Part 135 operators. Perhaps there is one since most enforcement actions are not made public, but I have never even heard of a case of someone busted for flying a friend (real, not Facebook) to the friend's sister's wedding on a one-shot deal, even if the friend paid for everything. Even though if someone was silly enough to present the question to the Chief Counsel, there's is little doubt the answer would be "you can't".

Some folks don't like it that way. They are bothered by a rule that makes some pretty reasonable activities (like the friend's sister's wedding) technically a violation of a administrative rule. Others don't think Part 135 operators should be protected. And still others think the FAA is going about it all wrong. And that's fine. Matters of whom should be entitled to protection and the means used to do so is always open to debate.
 
Timmer said:
That's true of 90% of the regulations, I find. It can be fun to find the edges, but I cringe when I see threads of pilots actually flaunting them as they are the reason we have the crazy regs that try to capture all those edges. _Most_ of the time, understanding and following the intent of the rules will be good, but it's good to know the funky letters of the law, too :)
Click to expand...

Actually, flaunting the regulations is perfectly legal.
 
Bonchie said:
Where are you getting such a strict definition of common purpose?
Click to expand...
From the FAA Chief Counsel.

Where does it say common purpose must be arrived at individually or that the common purpose can't be shared? I.E. both want to go eat dinner in a certain city.
Click to expand...
If they both independently want to eat dinner in the same city, then common purpose is satisfied. If the pilot says, "I'm flying to XYZ for dinner, want to come along and pay for half the gas?" then the pilot is holding out air transportation for hire.

If you really want to learn about this, go to the FAA Chief Counsel's legal interpretation web page and search on "common purpose". That should provide enough reading on the topic to keep you busy for several hours.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Serious question and not necessarily directed at Ron:

Male pilot takes a female passenger for a joyride with the expectation that he will later get sex.

Is it FAA/ Chief Counsel legal? Also, is it prostitution?
Click to expand...
Gimme a break. :mad2:
 
JimNtexas said:
Nonsense. What the FAA cares is that you not 'split costs' to fly your friend to wedding or a business meeting, in which case you are doing a 134.5.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
If you and your friend want to fly to a $100 hamburger, he can pitch for the gas no problem. You both have the 'common purpose' of eating lunch at the same place.
Click to expand...
That depends on how things came about. If you offer a ride for lunch on condition of payment, then the FAA will call that holding out air transportation for hire. Likewise, if the friend says "Can you fly me to lunch at XYZ if I pay half," and you accept, then that indicates a willingness to provide air transportation for hire.

As I said before, just leave the damn money out of it, and if your friend beats you to the meal check, so be it.
 
StinkBug said:
This all seems more than a little blurry to me.

Catalina Island is a popular tourist destination where people from So Cal like to visit on the weekends. I regularly take my boat over there with friends. They also have an airport. If a couple friends and I decided to fly over for the day because it's faster than the 5 hour sail, would we not have a common purpose?
Click to expand...
Maybe so, but as I said above, it depends how it came about. If you were all planning to go there independently of the decision to fly, then yes. If flying was a factor in deciding whether to go, then no.

Seems that if this were the case there wouldn't be a rule allowing a pro-rata share at all, and it would simply be written as "no compensation at all, period"
Click to expand...
They'd be very happy to do that if they catch enough people stepping over the line they've drawn, so please don't, and if you do, don't let anyone else know or otherwise attract the FAA's attention.
 
Lindberg said:
Do you have a case? I see no reason in the FARs why a common purpose has to involve getting somewhere, but that doesn't mean I'd be shocked to see such an interpretation some where.
Click to expand...
Go search the legal interpretations per my instructions above. There's plenty on the subject.
 
StinkBug said:
I'm certainly not the one writing the rules, but it would seem to me that if "sightseeing" is a legitimate business model, it should also be a reasonable use of a personal aircraft. As such I cant see how taking friends sightseeing could be seen as not a common purpose. If you're both seeing the sights, that would be the shared purpose.
Click to expand...
Your friends planned to go seeing those sights on that day even without you? Common purpose means a reason to be going where you're going without regard to mode of transportation. If it's aerial sightseeing, then it's not fitting that definition.
 
StinkBug said:
I was trying to figure out how to word that correctly. What I was trying to say is that if sightseeing is seen as a legitimate use for an aircraft, than it should be a legitimate use regardless of if there is money involved or not. Sharing expenses is not the same as for profit or for hire, which is the whole reason for the pro-rata wording in the rule.
Click to expand...
Y'see, that's the problem -- in the FAA's eyes, it is the same unless you stay within some very limited exceptions to the basic prohibitions on providing air transportation for hire without a commercial operator certificate or sightseeing LoA.
 
B350ATP said:
I agree, but lets re-wind things a bit. Common Purpose is not even in the FAR's and I have yet to see the purported Chief Counsel (again? :sad: ) interpretations on this not-in-the-regs term.
Click to expand...
Then you should look them up as I suggested above. It might be enlightening.
 
Leave it to the government to make things way more complicated than they should be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
hyphen81 said:
Leave it to the government to make things way more complicated than they should be.


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

Actually, a lot of these you can blame the pilots. You can read these forums, too, to see that. Simple rule: no compensation for flying as a private pilot. Right? Then people find ways around that like: "Hey I'll take you to X if you pay for my hotel fees once we're there" or "I'll fly you around in exchange for business benefits" etc. You'll see people discuss the edges of the written law knowing they are breaking the spirit. Once that happens, new edge-case laws have to be developed. Eventually, you end up with thousands of words to cover a simple concept :)

Please note, there are plenty of terribly-written regulations with stupid or not-for-public-good purpose, also, but I think too often we, the public, like to blame the Government without looking at ourselves.
 
I agree what Ron is saying is right but it is such a ridiculous idea.

If I tell a friend I am going to grab a pizza. Prior to me saying that he might have wanted to go to his fridge and make a sandwich but then he thinks. Yeah, pizza sounds better.

Well crap we don't have a common purpose because he didn't want pizza before. Now he truly wants to eat pizza.

Personally I have not yet split costs with pax because 100% of my flights were going to be made anyway and it doesn't cost me any more to bring a friend. Also nobody has offered :( Every flight with a non-pilot has been me going "Hey want to go flying somewhere we can fly aimlessly or grab food or whatever."

Actually, my dad and I fly and we are both pilots. I pay for the fuel on the way out and he pays for the fuel on the way back in. Say one day we may be flying and he says "you want to land and grab some food?" and I say "no" then I cannot pay for the tank of gas?

The foundation upon which the rule is based has merit. The level of nit picky detail is way over the top.
 
How did we ever exist before google and the ability to search the FAA website's legal opinions ?

How did we get out of bed, or tie our shoes ?

'nuff said
 
I'd have to see someone who was actually violated for splitting costs on a $100 hamburger before I lose any sleep over it.

I agree the rules may make such a hamburger run complicated. I'm just not sure it matters.
 
What I want to know is, where are people finding all these passengers who are willing to pay a pro rata share of the costs? In my 23 years as a pilot, I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who were interested in doing that!
 
Palmpilot said:
What I want to know is, where are people finding all these passengers who are willing to pay a pro rata share of the costs? In my 23 years as a pilot, I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who were interested in doing that!
Click to expand...

I was kinda wondering the same thing. I keep an infrequent eye on these sites, and they never seem to have much action, so I think the entire discussion is a moot one.
 
Palmpilot said:
What I want to know is, where are people finding all these passengers who are willing to pay a pro rata share of the costs? In my 23 years as a pilot, I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who were interested in doing that!
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Although a few days ago, my father-in-law said he'd like to go sightseeing around Manhattan with me (something I love doing frequently..hint hint). Now I'm scared to accept a pro-rata share of the flight cost:hairraise:

Y'all gonna rat me out?:D
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
:yeahthat:

Although a few days ago, my father-in-law said he'd like to go sightseeing around Manhattan with me (something I love doing frequently..hint hint). Now I'm scared to accept a pro-rata share of the flight cost:hairraise:

Y'all gonna rat me out?:D
Click to expand...

Just don't post it on the SZ:rofl:
 
Palmpilot said:
What I want to know is, where are people finding all these passengers who are willing to pay a pro rata share of the costs? In my 23 years as a pilot, I can count on one hand the number of people I have met who were interested in doing that!
Click to expand...
You're not advertising enough :D

Through the years I have had a pretty good number of people ask me if I can fly them somewhere.

The only cost sharing I've actually done have involved events at a destination we were both interested in going to. All have involved family members and close friends. And I haven't worried one tiny bit about a friend picking up the lunch or dinner tab.

In the "edgy" situations not clearly covered by the exceptions? I often wonder why pilots exercising private privileges are so intent on finding a way getting something back for taking someone up.
 
midlifeflyer said:
... I often wonder why pilots exercising private privileges are so intent on finding a way getting something back for taking someone up.
Click to expand...

I think I know EXACTLY why: it's because flying is EXPENSIVE! If passengers share the cost, it means that pilots whose means are limited can afford to fly more.

As my financial wherewithal has improved, my focus on reimbursement has dropped way off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top