"Common purpose" and taking your friends up

I need to improve my financial wherewithal
 
Palmpilot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ah, you mean they want to be compensated for part of it! Of course! ;)
 
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?
Click to expand...
Web sites such as "pilotsharetheride" or "sharemysky"? :dunno: Nothing like putting your violation of the rules out in cyberspace where anyone/everyone can see them and you cannot ever erase them. :no:

Seriously, I've had many people over the years ask me if I can fly them somewhere if they pay for it. I've always explained that I cannot legally do that. One time on a Pilots'n'Paws flight, the receiving party tried to pay for the fuel going in my plane. Damn near had to get physical to keep her from shoving her credit card in the self-serve fuel machine, and she still stuck a check in the plane when I wasn't looking. I still hold that check with VOID written across it as proof that I never received compensation for that flight.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I could pay my brother to come fly with me… let alone get him to pay half. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
Web sites such as "pilotsharetheride" or "sharemysky"? :dunno: Nothing like putting your violation of the rules out in cyberspace where anyone/everyone can see them and you cannot ever erase them. :no:

Seriously, I've had many people over the years ask me if I can fly them somewhere if they pay for it. I've always explained that I cannot legally do that. One time on a Pilots'n'Paws flight, the receiving party tried to pay for the fuel going in my plane. Damn near had to get physical to keep her from shoving her credit card in the self-serve fuel machine, and she still stuck a check in the plane when I wasn't looking. I still hold that check with VOID written across it as proof that I never received compensation for that flight.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't it have been easier to explain to her that you're being compensated in the form of a tax write-off?
 
Passenger pro-rata logic: I can get a ticket on Southwest to go from LA to NY for $300. This small little plane is taking me 100 miles. That should be about $20 max.
 
JimNtexas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Never could happen since you can't see the landings from your table. Maybe 32 but not 16.
 
Ron Levy said:
Web sites such as "pilotsharetheride" or "sharemysky"? :dunno: Nothing like putting your violation of the rules out in cyberspace where anyone/everyone can see them and you cannot ever erase them. :no:
Click to expand...

I was partly expressing my skepticism about how many non-pilot takers these sites get. Does anyone here know?

Seriously, I've had many people over the years ask me if I can fly them somewhere if they pay for it. I've always explained that I cannot legally do that. One time on a Pilots'n'Paws flight, the receiving party tried to pay for the fuel going in my plane. Damn near had to get physical to keep her from shoving her credit card in the self-serve fuel machine, and she still stuck a check in the plane when I wasn't looking. I still hold that check with VOID written across it as proof that I never received compensation for that flight.
Click to expand...

They probably know that you're a better pilot than I am. :)
 
Last edited:
SixPapaCharlie said:
I need to improve my financial wherewithal
Click to expand...


You're young and got your health, what do you want with a job? :dunno:

Raising-Arizona-1024x571.jpg



I just wanna know if that guy got his sex after the flight ... imo, during flight, it's barter, a service for a service, but afterwards, she's a whore. :D

Or did they end up flying to go have orgy sex with others somewhere was their common purpose therefore legit? :lol:
 
Goodwill can be considered compensation.

So, you can only carry passengers who will resent you or be indifferent to the flight? Why don't they just go ahead and add a new regulation that say no fun allowed.
 
cowman said:
Goodwill can be considered compensation.
Click to expand...
Only if you have a business relationship with your passenger.

So, you can only carry passengers who will resent you or be indifferent to the flight? Why don't they just go ahead and add a new regulation that say no fun allowed.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your position, but you need to appreciate the FAA's position -- they very want much want to keep money out of the equation for Private/Rec/Sport Pilots. In any event, I don't see how not collecting money from your passengers makes it any less fun for them, or that it is only fun for the pilot if s/he does collect money from them.
 
cowman said:
Goodwill can be considered compensation.

So, you can only carry passengers who will resent you or be indifferent to the flight? Why don't they just go ahead and add a new regulation that say no fun allowed.
Click to expand...
The weirdest part to me of the "goodwill" one (which I guess covers flights of business guests not covered by 91.501(b ) or the NBAA exemption) is that one of the cases applying it goes out of its way to apply it. It involved a private pilot who stepped in to help out a restaurateur friend who had sold tickets to the restaurant Super Bowl party. The tickets included air transportation and when the commercial pilot couldn't do it, the private pilot friend stepped in to help out.

It always seemed to me it would have been very easy for the FAA to simply say the private pilot was acting "as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" [61.113(a)] since the passengers all paid for tickets that included the flight. But the FAA and NTSB seemed to go out of its way to say the pilot himself was being compensated in the form of expected future benefits from the relationship.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The weirdest part to me of the "goodwill" one (which I guess covers flights of business guests not covered by 91.501(b ) or the NBAA exemption) is that one of the cases applying it goes out of its way to apply it. It involved a private pilot who stepped in to help out a restaurateur friend who had sold tickets to the restaurant Super Bowl party. The tickets included air transportation and when the commercial pilot couldn't do it, the private pilot friend stepped in to help out.

It always seemed to me it would have been very easy for the FAA to simply say the private pilot was acting "as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" [61.113(a)] since the passengers all paid for tickets that included the flight. But the FAA and NTSB seemed to go out of its way to say the pilot himself was being compensated in the form of expected future benefits from the relationship.
Click to expand...

Very interesting - I hadn't thought of that!

Reminds me of the contortions that an administrative law judge went through to claim that flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace without a clearance was careless or reckless, while overlooking the violation of VFR cloud clearance rules once the flight entered controlled airspace.
 
I personally don't ever split costs, even though I've had a few passengers offer to chip in.

Still, I'll defend any pilot's right to do so, and oppose any ridiculous overly strict notion of 'common purpose'.
 
Not sure how common it is but just saw a ad on Craiglsist for plane trip @ $150.
 
midlifeflyer said:
"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.
Click to expand...


You're confusing the terms "for profit" and "making a profit". There is nothing saying that a "for profit" company has to actually make a profit. I'm quite familiar with this, being a business owner myself. Offering rides in your plane and charging, is a "for profit" enterprise, regardless of whether or not you cover your expenses or make any kind of profit. The discussion as I've interpreted it is about the pro-rata rules. In what cases we are allowed to accept an equal share of expenses from our passengers. NOT for profit, NOT for hire.

As for having people offer, some of you must have the wrong kinda friends. I dont even have a PPL yet and I've already had several friends tell me they wanna go up once I get my license. This is one reason why I'm quite interested in this discussion. I have no desire to cross any lines, but it would be nice if I could LEGALLY share the expense when friends wanna go up with me.
 
Ron Levy said:
I don't see how not collecting money from your passengers makes it any less fun for them, or that it is only fun for the pilot if s/he does collect money from them.
Click to expand...

Joking right?

Lot's of things are fun if you're not footing the bill. Once you mention to a suspected moocher that they can split costs (disregarding the regs), suddenly you see that many of them will have their enthusiasm wane..."well....I didn't really want to go that bad"...or...."we can go another time".....or


you get the picture
 
Got a question:

What's the difference between saying to a buddy "hey! we can drive my Chevy to Honeck's place and charter a fishing boat and split the costs."

Or saying "hey! we can fly my Cessna to Honeck's place and charter a boat and split the costs."

Or saying "hey! facebook and web friends, I'm flying to Honeck's place next week to go charter fishing, anyone want to cost share?

:dunno:
 
Last edited:
StinkBug said:
...As for having people offer, some of you must have the wrong kinda friends. I dont even have a PPL yet and I've already had several friends tell me they wanna go up once I get my license. This is one reason why I'm quite interested in this discussion. I have no desire to cross any lines, but it would be nice if I could LEGALLY share the expense when friends wanna go up with me.
Click to expand...

I've had more people volunteer to go flying with me than have volunteered to split the costs.
 
I don't really have a big problem with the whole idea of paying no less than your pro-rata share. I expect most of the time I'll be paying for the entire flight anyway.

I also get that the real point is to keep private pilots from running passenger services which should be held to a higher standard. I don't have much of a problem with that either.

But, realistically I want to have fun with my airplane and I want to have fun with my friends and my airplane. Flying is expensive and I only have a finite amount of money. If I have a friend who wants to go places as well and he wants to kick in some gas money that means I can afford to fly more or farther or do more when I get there. That's probably why they say "pro rata share" in the first place and this all seems quite reasonable once again...

And if I only went by what is in my fat FAR/AIM book and what I've been taught by CFIs, read in my textbooks, etc then I'd be happily going along thinking it was that simple and splitting costs with my friends and not worrying about like I bet most people do without ever knowing any different.

But apparently it's not that simple. Apparently if I purpose the destination and my friend splits the gas bill to get there, that's not common purpose and I've been compensated. If he proposes the destination then I guess that isn't common purpose either... so I'm being compensated. So unless we are sitting in the same room and come up with the same destination at the same moment out of thin air and decide now is the time to go, any cost sharing is technically no bueno. Stupid.

But then this "goodwill" thing comes along and that really takes the cake. I don't know about you but I do favors for friends all the time and they do stuff for me. We don't really keep score or anything but it's just generally understood I'm doing something for you because some day later you'll probably do something for me. Only doing something for a business? Ok... but you could probably call helping someone move or helping them paint their fence barter too. If I read all this stuff literally and interpret it as strictly as I see some here doing, I don't think a private pilot can carry passengers legally ever.

Or one could just play it smart.... I could fly with my friend out to some destination. He can hand me untraceable cash, then we can get so drunk later that night we completely forget it happened.

Or one could play as if they only read the regulations, their textbooks, and listened to their CFI and just make sure they pay no less than their pro-rata share... and unless some complete jerk decided to cause problems for that person the FAA would never officially know and therefore never care.
 
Cowman and others are exactly right, this is all B.S. Don't advertise as an aircraft for hire, don't fly people you don't know places for money, don't sign up for any self incriminating stuff on the Internet, don't be outright stupid and all is well. Lots of people have been sharing the cost to go somewhere and it will never stop, nor should it. I'm sure the FAA knows that as well.
 
midlifeflyer said:
The weirdest part to me of the "goodwill" one (which I guess covers flights of business guests not covered by 91.501(b ) or the NBAA exemption) is that one of the cases applying it goes out of its way to apply it. It involved a private pilot who stepped in to help out a restaurateur friend who had sold tickets to the restaurant Super Bowl party. The tickets included air transportation and when the commercial pilot couldn't do it, the private pilot friend stepped in to help out.

It always seemed to me it would have been very easy for the FAA to simply say the private pilot was acting "as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire" [61.113(a)] since the passengers all paid for tickets that included the flight. But the FAA and NTSB seemed to go out of its way to say the pilot himself was being compensated in the form of expected future benefits from the relationship.
Click to expand...
In that case (Administrator v Murray), the pilot already had a business relationship with the restaurateur other than providing the air transportation for which the passengers had paid, and that is that basis on which the FAA hung the "goodwill" issue.
 
Palmpilot said:
Reminds me of the contortions that an administrative law judge went through to claim that flying IFR in uncontrolled airspace without a clearance was careless or reckless, while overlooking the violation of VFR cloud clearance rules once the flight entered controlled airspace.
Click to expand...
The ALJ did not "overlook" that violation in Administrator v. Murphy. Rather, the FAA failed to charge it, and the ALJ can't find you in violation of a regulation the FAA did not charge you with violating.
 
StinkBug said:
You're confusing the terms "for profit" and "making a profit". There is nothing saying that a "for profit" company has to actually make a profit. I'm quite familiar with this, being a business owner myself. Offering rides in your plane and charging, is a "for profit" enterprise, regardless of whether or not you cover your expenses or make any kind of profit.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. All that matters is that it involved an exchange of something of value in return for air transportation (i.e., "air transportation for compensation or hire". Neither the form of compensation nor the issues of profit matter, because while there are some exceptions for non-profit events in 91.146, the word "profit" is not part of the regulations we're discussing.

The discussion as I've interpreted it is about the pro-rata rules. In what cases we are allowed to accept an equal share of expenses from our passengers. NOT for profit, NOT for hire.
Click to expand...
Some very limited cases -- as long as all the elements of 61.113 are met (including what has been determined to be the implicit issue of common purpose). But still, profit is not an issue, only "air transportation for hire or compensation" regardless of profit or loss.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Joking right?
Click to expand...
No, I'm not.

Lot's of things are fun if you're not footing the bill. Once you mention to a suspected moocher that they can split costs (disregarding the regs), suddenly you see that many of them will have their enthusiasm wane..."well....I didn't really want to go that bad"...or...."we can go another time".....or


you get the picture
Click to expand...
Yes, I do, and it illustrates my point perfectly.
 
txflyer said:
Got a question:

What's the difference between saying to a buddy "hey! we can drive my Chevy to Honeck's place and charter a fishing boat and split the costs."

Or saying "hey! we can fly my Cessna to Honeck's place and charter a boat and split the costs."

Or saying "hey! facebook and web friends, I'm flying to Honeck's place next week to go charter fishing, anyone want to cost share?

:dunno:
Click to expand...
The difference is that 14 CFR 61.113 does not apply to driving your Chevy.
 
Ron Levy said:
The difference is that 14 CFR 61.113 does not apply to driving your Chevy.
Click to expand...


But I'm not being compensated or hired.

The FBO and all the other vendors are being compensated.

If he pays me his pro rata share, it's the same as if he went in and paid the FBO. Provided I swiped the entire fuel bill onto my card, no difference. :dunno:
 
txflyer said:
But I'm not being compensated or hired.

The FBO and all the other vendors are being compensated.

If he pays me his pro rata share, it's the same as if he went in and paid the FBO. Provided I swiped the entire fuel bill onto my card, no difference. :dunno:
Click to expand...
I don't see why he couldn't pay his share to the FBO. As long as you don't pay less than your pro-rata share, that part should be legal.

As to your "web buddies"... were they buddies first, that you kept in touch with through Facebook? Or were they part of a segment of the general public you "held out" to? Have you done similar things with them before, like hunting, bowling, hiking? Have you even met them in person? Are they really "buddies"? Or transportation "customers"? I'd think those are the kind of questions the FAA would want to answer if the flight were to fall under suspicion for any reason.

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
I don't see why he couldn't pay his share to the FBO. As long as you don't pay less than your pro-rata share, that part should be legal.

As to your "web buddies"... were they buddies first, that you kept in touch with through Facebook? Or were they part of a segment of the general public you "held out" to? Have you done similar things with them before, like hunting, bowling, hiking? Have you even met them in person? Are they really "buddies"? Or transportation "customers"? I'd think those are the kind of questions the FAA would want to answer if the flight were to fall under suspicion for any reason.

dtuuri
Click to expand...



Use this thread as an example.

I don't know you from Adam, but what if I asked would you be interested in flying with me on a tour to Alaska in my 180 and splitting the costs? What's wrong with that?

That's not holding out even though I met you five minutes ago. In the grand scheme of things, we all have to meet at some point. Qualifying a share by how long or personally you've known them should be irrelevant. :dunno:
 
cowman said:
...But apparently it's not that simple. Apparently if I purpose the destination and my friend splits the gas bill to get there, that's not common purpose and I've been compensated. If he proposes the destination then I guess that isn't common purpose either... so I'm being compensated. So unless we are sitting in the same room and come up with the same destination at the same moment out of thin air and decide now is the time to go, any cost sharing is technically no bueno. Stupid....
Click to expand...

I think that might be an exaggeration of what people are saying, but I also suspect that some people go too far in trying to extrapolate the reasoning in certain appeals cases to other situations.
 
txflyer said:
Use this thread as an example.

I don't know you from Adam, but what if I asked would you be interested in flying with me on a tour to Alaska in my 180 and splitting the costs? What's wrong with that?

That's not holding out even though I met you five minutes ago. In the grand scheme of things, we all have to meet at some point. Qualifying a share by how long or personally you've known them should be irrelevant. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Maybe the FAA should consider whether one is sharing expenses with relative strangers on a regular basis.
 
txflyer said:
But I'm not being compensated or hired.

The FBO and all the other vendors are being compensated.

If he pays me his pro rata share, it's the same as if he went in and paid the FBO. Provided I swiped the entire fuel bill onto my card, no difference. :dunno:
Click to expand...
No, it's not. Read the FAA interpretations on point linked above, plus search this site for "compensation".
 
dtuuri said:
I don't see why he couldn't pay his share to the FBO. As long as you don't pay less than your pro-rata share, that part should be legal.
Click to expand...
Won't matter to the FAA whether he paid you or gave the money to the FBO -- the pilot still got something of value (free/cut-rate flying time) in return for providing air transportation to the passenger. That's the textbook definition of "compensation", or as Dr. Lector put it, "Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo."

If you're going to do this, be smart enough not to leave a paper trail like your buddy's credit card being charged for your flying time -- take it in cash privately when nobody's looking, put it straight in your pocket, and use your own credit card to pay for the flight.
 
Palmpilot said:
Maybe the FAA should consider whether one is sharing expenses with relative strangers on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
The regulation makes no differentiation based on number of occurrences, and I for one can see why the FAA would be loath to try to set some sort of numeric limit on the legal number of times a pilot would be allowed to do this.
 
Ron Levy said:
The regulation makes no differentiation based on number of occurrences...
Click to expand...

I agree.

...and I for one can see why the FAA would be loath to try to set some sort of numeric limit on the legal number of times a pilot would be allowed to do this.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that a numeric limit should be established. Not all cases are black and white, and the NTSB has said that they look at all the facts and circumstances of each case. If there is a pattern of conduct, that could help establish whether the pilot's statements about his purpose in making the flight are credible or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top