"Common purpose" and taking your friends up

[txflyer]

No, it's not. Read the FAA interpretations on point linked above, plus search this site for "compensation".

I retreat in absortium confusium.

 

[dtuuri]

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.

If I was the only one you asked, I'd agree. If you sent out a blast to everybody online--you're "holding out". Do something in between, then the lawyers at the FAA will try to find a way to fault you rather than exonerate you. The practical side of this is it won't matter until it REALLY MATTERS--like if you get flipped over by jet wash while taxiing behind a B747 and are blown into a commuter plane full of passengers. Or something like that..

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

I retreat in absortium confusium.

...which just goes to show why this issue attracts so much discussion every time it comes up, and why I so strongly recommend that Private Pilots just not take money from passengers. The few bucks you might collect just aren't worth the potential headaches and ongoing worry about whether you screwed up. Of all the things I've ever done that I hope nobody ever finds out about (and after 63 years on this earth, there's no end of those), none of them involve this regulation, and that might be good for one or two nights of restful sleep I might not otherwise have.

 

[txflyer]

Advice downloaded and processed.

Loose lips sink ships.

 

[StinkBug]

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.

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.

Did you actually read my post that you quoted? Because you just said essentially the exact same thing I did, in a somewhat argumentative way.

 

[midlifeflyer]

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?

Not much really except that in the airplane case, you chose to engage in an activity that's more heavily regulated than cars and boats.

I really doubt the FAA would have a problem with the first one.

The FAA's "possible" concern with the second is how far and wide the potential group is. At what point does it simply become an advertisement for a service? That's probably why the Chief Counsel punted on that one in what was otherwise an opinion letter that pretty much expanded the leeway given to pilots.[2011 Haberkorn Letter]