Do you solicit Passengers

kimberlyanne546 said:
Are you saying if I've done something for 10 years I should be considered a professional and get paid for it?
Click to expand...

If you have been doing something for 10 years without pay, you remain an amateur. Accepting money will instantly promote you to professional.
 
John221us said:
If you have been doing something for 10 years without pay, you remain an amateur. Accepting money will instantly promote you to professional.
Click to expand...

Oh wait... unless it involves sports, then there are ways to retain your amateur status.
 
Ron Levy said:
Yup. Common purpose just went away when you indicated your willingess to fit your schedule to your paying passsenger's.
Click to expand...
I can't quite wrap my head around that one. Just because I'm willing to be flexible schedule wise for a friend, it can't be a common purpose?. I understand that from the purely legal, hypothetical perspective that it shouldn't walk or quack like a flight for hire duck but when two or more folks are sharing a "common purpose" in any endeavor, some form of mutual flexibility on schedule and other things is not unusual and often necessary.

For a hypothetical example lets say there's an airshow in Duluth that runs on both days of a weekend. I'm thinking of going on Saturday but could go either day. A friend indicates he'd like to go along but can't miss his son's soccer games so Sunday is the only option for him. How does my altering my rather vague plans to accommodate his needs at no cost to myself shed the rather obvious common purpose?
 
What if my friend had several burritos last night. Had to leave 2 hours late cause he would not come out of the porcelain palace. Oh no! I've altered my schedule!
 
dell30rb said:
i'd argue sightseeing could be a common purpose

Although I seem to remember paying for all of the sightseeing flights i've been on.

Is it ok to agree to share costs beforehand? As in: "hey, i'm going to fly to that cabin this weekend, driving is for whimps. You guys want a ride? it will cost around $50 a person to take the plane if we all go... "

This is assuming the guys I am offering a ride were planning on going to the cabin regardless.
Click to expand...

You hung yourself right there. That is "holding out."

Bob Gardner
 
Not an exact match, but the Office of the General Counsel, in one of its opinions, specifically mentioned the use of a bulletin board as "holding out" to the public the offer of transportation. In the situation you cite the offer is verbal, but the prohibition still stands. :sad:

Bob Gardner
 
Really Folks. This has gotten more complicated than I expected.

Ok I take friend flying for first flight Free. Next time he says hey lets go flying and we will share the cost. I wasn't planning on going flying and alter my life shedule to go flying with him on the day of his liking. So we go flying and split the cost 1/2.

Next his buddy comes to me and says I heard your a Pilot. I want to go flying with you. I don't know this guy but I said sure we will split the cost 1/2. I trust my buddy judgement in friends and we go flying.

So where is the red FAA flags. The two situations has happened.
 
Last edited:
I have to shake my head at all this.

Jaysus.

I fly with friends all the time. Sometimes they pay for half the costs, sometimes they don't - mostly depends on whether they can afford to, everyone understands this stuff is expensive, they all love the experience, and wouldn't dream of taking advantage of my hospitality like that.

How on earth would this EVER be challenged by ANYBODY? in practical terms. I mean, really, give me the scenario where FAA chief counsel is going to come to me and demand an explanation. That is, other than if one of my friends complains to them.

Of course, that's why I don't take strangers up with me, or if I do, sharing costs never even comes up. Because after all, if they're a stranger, I really should have no business taking money from them to fly.

I dunno, maybe I'm naive, but at the end of the day, AFAIC, it's all a matter of intent, and relationships. If you have a real worry that someone you're flying with is going to go to the trouble of getting you into hot soup with the FAA over sharing flight costs with you, maybe you shouldn't be taking them flying. Just sayin'. That's the relationship part. And assuming you're not somehow trying to skirt the rules in order to "fly for rent", then I can't see ANY situation in which you'd be challenged. That's the intent part.
 
Here's an example from a motorcycle forum that I'm a member of. I remember at the time thinking that this certainly did not pass the smell test.

Hi everyone,

Since I am now a licensed pilot I'd like to share my new-found ability. If anyone is interested in flying around this area to do some site-seeing or just go have fun in a small airplane, please hit me up. Here is what it would cost and the airplanes I have available to rent:

2-seater Cessna 150
  • $45 per hour (1 passenger)
4-seater Skyhawk II
  • $27.50 per hour (3 passengers)
  • $36.00 per hour (2 passengers)
  • $55.00 per hour (1 passenger)
Prices are per person, per hour. The reason I'm offering this is because I get credit for the flight hours, which helps me with my Air Force application, and it helps my passengers as I'm sharing the costs of the flight. If you're interested, PM me your phone number and proposed flight time and we'll work something out!

DISCLAIMER: I am not a commercial pilot. Therefore, I am required to share the costs of the flight with my passengers. I have to pay a minimum of the pro-rata share of the flight. I DO NOT GET PAID AT ALL FOR THIS. Hence cheaper prices with more people. Mountain flights are unavailable until I receive further training in that particular area. This isn't a requirement by the FAA, just for my and my passenger's safety.
Click to expand...
 
bfergie10 said:
Here's an example from a motorcycle forum that I'm a member of. I remember at the time thinking that this certainly did not pass the smell test.
Click to expand...

Fully agree that this does not pass the sniff test. This looks like soliciting strangers.

But between that and going to your ol' buddy Joe and saying "yo, Joe, wanna go flyin' for a burger for lunch tomorrow? we can share the cost" there's a world of difference. IMO, anyway.
 
The concept of soliciting passengers and taking friends up for a flight are different worlds. If you hang flyers, or advertise yourself in anyway shape or form (Holding Out) especially to strangers or people that you don't have a standing relationship with, out of the question. Now if your friend says HE is going to visit his family upstate, and you offer, hey I will fly you up there and split the cost, that would be a a NO, unless you wanted to go up and see your family who lives in the same town as his family. You and your friend are planning to go to the casino 4 days from now, your friend later that day says I can't do it that day, how about we go in 5 days, completely acceptable.
 
Since I am now a licensed pilot I'd like to share my new-found ability. If anyone is interested in flying around this area to do some site-seeing or just go have fun in a small airplane, please hit me up. Here is what it would cost and the airplanes I have available to rent:

2-seater Cessna 150
  • $45 per hour (1 passenger)


Perfect example of HOLDING OUT! also SOLICITATION!
 
TommyG said:
Now if your friend says HE is going to visit his family upstate, and you offer, hey I will fly you up there and split the cost, that would be a a NO, unless you wanted to go up and see your family who lives in the same town as his family.
Click to expand...

And how, if I may politely ask, is this ever going to be questioned? under what set of circumstances is this ever going to be challenged by the FAA?

Assuming he or she is a real friend, of course. Someone with a "standing relationship", such as you suggest earlier.

Honestly, there is a point when "the rules" really don't matter anymore. If a tree falls in the forest when nobody's around and all that.

I honestly don't really care what the FAA chief counsel thinks. He is paid to provide his legal interpretation of hypothetical situations, not wisdom. That's why lawyers are really not the right people to ask for interpreting the law, only for arguing it. If I ever do anything to draw the attention of the FAA chief counsel to me, then let me tell you, I expect it to be a pretty significant thing to have done. Sharing costs with my friends to fly to see their family, on a spur-of-the-moment kinda thing, even if they asked me, and even if I said "dude, I'd love to help cause I love you and you're my best friend, but can't swing the full cost of it myself" - I really just can't see it crossing that line in the real world.

The law recognizes intent. Or at least it should, although this country has gone so far down the route of lawyering and rules-mongering, I keep wondering about good ol' "guilty mind" (mens rea).
 
Last edited:
TommyG said:
Perfect example of HOLDING OUT! also SOLICITATION!
Click to expand...

Oh, I forgot to include the thread title.

Site-seeing flights over [city name withheld] / surrounding area
Click to expand...
Even though this forum is a local forum, and the poster certainly knew a few of the other members personally, I don't think that matters. This was a guy that was trying to get into the Air Force as a pilot, he was trying to build hours hoping that would help his chances.
 
onwards said:
And how, if I may politely ask, is this ever going to be questioned? (mens rea).
Click to expand...

IN the real world 99.99% never, unless there's an accident and he says he paid you. As with most things. I'm on the same page as you, I was just giving examples of legality.
 
TommyG said:
IN the real world 99.99% never, unless there's an accident and he says he paid you. As with most things. I'm on the same page as you, I was just giving examples of legality.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I think these are examples of the kind legal argument that could be made by a lawyer on one end of the issue, but not necessarily the actual final interpretation of the law by a mediator or judge assigned to the hypothetical case. That's an important distinction. Lawyers are really crap at interpreting the law, because they are pretty much always paid by someone to make that interpretation.
 
Oh and to answer the OP's question...

Rides are free here. If I'm going flying anyway and someone wants to come along, and if the useful load can handle it, they're in.

Most pax lately have been other pilots anyway, so they call when they're going up and I get to ride.
 
TommyG said:
Since I am now a licensed pilot I'd like to share my new-found ability. If anyone is interested in flying around this area to do some site-seeing or just go have fun in a small airplane, please hit me up. Here is what it would cost and the airplanes I have available to rent:

2-seater Cessna 150
  • $45 per hour (1 passenger)


Perfect example of HOLDING OUT! also SOLICITATION!
Click to expand...

And besides, Solicitation is a Class 3 misdemeanor. Actually,

(f) Criminal solicitation is a:

  1. Class A felony if the offense solicited is murder.
  2. Class B felony if the offense solicited is a Class A felony.
  3. Class C felony if the offense solicited is a Class B felony.
  4. Class A misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class C felony.
  5. Class B misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class A misdemeanor.
  6. Class C misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class B misdemeanor.
  7. Violation if the offense solicited is a Class C misdemeanor."
 
Interesting topic of discussion.

Ok I now understand between soliciting and non soliciting. My intent was never to solicit strangers in any way for flying expenses. I just want to make things fair and clear with my passengers concerning the cost of flying.

I will take the advice first time up is free if I make the offer and I'm going flying anyway. After that we share cost.
 
<Sarcasm> Well, you should contact your FSDO through an attorney and tell them you wish to surrender peacefully. Both of those situations were violations of the rules as written and currently interpreted by the Chief Counsel. </Sarcasm>

Really, it's only proper if:
You're going flying with some people you know, and you've got a common reason to go together - maybe you're going to visit your beach house or see a baseball game. The idea had to be yours or possibly a "what'll we do this weekend" thing. NOT a request by your friends.
 
Haberkorn is interesting. Note that the scenario of you going to a location to attend a wedding and your companions traveling with you to attend a baseball game is clearly allowed under this decision (a "bona fide common purpose" of personal business in the location, it doesn't have to be the same personal business).

The decision also addresses the idea of posting on Facebook asking for ride sharers is OK since this would be limited to "friends/family/acquiescences". The response is that there is not enough information to make a definitive answer. The applicable case law is regarding common carriage, so the operative phrase is "willingness to provide transportation for all within this class or
segment to the extent of its capacity." I don't think asking people with whom you have a well established personal relationship with (close friends, family) is "holding out" by current case law, but I welcome actual citations that point out otherwise. Obviously a public post on Facebook is blatantly inappropriate. A post that can be read by all your Facebook "friends" depends on how well you know someone before you FB friend them! A post that can be read by only your close friends does not seem to meet the definition of "holding out".

The decision addresses a final point, if it is OK to accept a reimbursement through a service like Paypal because Paypal takes a cut (profits from the transaction). There is no issue with Paypal in this regard, but: "payment through Paypal would suggest that there is an interest in carrying passengers with whom there is no previous personal relationship and that the offer to accept passengers is being made to the general public". This statement seems to imply that asking around your friends with which you have a "well established personal relationship" is not "holding out" to the general public in any way.

I think the decision misses the fact that someone of my generation is reasonably likely (in my experience...) to prefer Paypal transaction of those weird anachronisms called "checks" or "cash" :) . A friend of mine (who hasn't yet been flying) doesn't even have a checkbook and just uses his online bill pay to mail a check which is amusing because when he pays me back for splitting a hotel room the check is mailed to "Accounts Receivable" at my address!
 
My "purpose" is to go for a ride. Doesn't much matter to me where I go or if someone is in the other seat.

Geoff "Day GFR Pilot" Thorpe.
 
onwards said:
And how, if I may politely ask, is this ever going to be questioned? under what set of circumstances is this ever going to be challenged by the FAA?
Click to expand...
Is this thread about what is permitted or whether you can get away with what's not allowed?

Other than the obvious - an incident in which you or, more likely your passenger, tells the truth when questioned, a substantial number of these activities are reported by legitimate operators - you know, the folks who spent the time and money to get the proper training, authorizations and supervision.


The law recognizes intent. Or at least it should, although this country has gone so far down the route of lawyering and rules-mongering, I keep wondering about good ol' "guilty mind" (mens rea).
Click to expand...
What's your definition of mens rea? The fact that mens rea is a principle of criminal law, which this is not, aside the definition I'm familiar with involves intentionally doing an act that one knows is prohibited, which you seem to have established in your post.
 
midlifeflyer said:
What's your definition of mens rea? The fact that mens rea is a principle of criminal law, which this is not, aside the definition I'm familiar with involves intentionally doing an act that one knows is prohibited, which you seem to have established in your post.
Click to expand...

You must be a lawyer, for the above is a classic example of everything I have been saying.
 
gismo said:
I can't quite wrap my head around that one. Just because I'm willing to be flexible schedule wise for a friend, it can't be a common purpose?. I understand that from the purely legal, hypothetical perspective that it shouldn't walk or quack like a flight for hire duck but when two or more folks are sharing a "common purpose" in any endeavor, some form of mutual flexibility on schedule and other things is not unusual and often necessary.

For a hypothetical example lets say there's an airshow in Duluth that runs on both days of a weekend. I'm thinking of going on Saturday but could go either day. A friend indicates he'd like to go along but can't miss his son's soccer games so Sunday is the only option for him. How does my altering my rather vague plans to accommodate his needs at no cost to myself shed the rather obvious common purpose?
Click to expand...
Duck test, and at the end of the day, the same folks who brought you the Mangiamele interpretation decide whether or not it is a duck.
 
evapilotaz said:
Really Folks. This has gotten more complicated than I expected.

Ok I take friend flying for first flight Free. Next time he says hey lets go flying and we will share the cost. I wasn't planning on going flying and alter my life shedule to go flying with him on the day of his liking. So we go flying and split the cost 1/2.

Next his buddy comes to me and says I heard your a Pilot. I want to go flying with you. I don't know this guy but I said sure we will split the cost 1/2. I trust my buddy judgement in friends and we go flying.

So where is the red FAA flags. The two situations has happened.
Click to expand...
As I read the Chief Counsel's writings, the second flight with the first guy and the first flight with the second are both illegal, the former because of lack of common purpose, and the latter because it suggests willingness to take anyone with money.
 
Ron Levy said:
Duck test, and at the end of the day, the same folks who brought you the Mangiamele interpretation decide whether or not it is a duck.
Click to expand...

And the folks to whom you appeal feel themselves obligated to defer to the FAA's interpretations of their own regulations.

Edit:
Don't do it.
If you DO do it, don't get caught.
If you DO get caught, don't blame me.
 
TommyG said:
IN the real world 99.99% never, unless there's an accident and he says he paid you. As with most things. I'm on the same page as you, I was just giving examples of legality.
Click to expand...
...or complains to the FAA about being overcharged. Yeah, I've heard of that happening.
 
Another hypothetical question-

A pp flys to a remote airport to pick up a friend. The premise of the trip is two fold- one to pick up the friend so they don't have to make the x hour drive in one way rental car vs x*0.3 hour flight. The pp is making the trip to build xc hours for instrument rating requirements. No money is being exchanged. It's a free ride for the friend. Is this a problem? I ask since the reason to pick the remote airport is that of someone else.
 
TommyG said:
IN the real world 99.99% never, unless there's an accident and he says he paid you. As with most things. I'm on the same page as you, I was just giving examples of legality.
Click to expand...

This is why you don't take any money until after the flight!
 
Mattl said:
Another hypothetical question-

A pp flys to a remote airport to pick up a friend. The premise of the trip is two fold- one to pick up the friend so they don't have to make the x hour drive in one way rental car vs x*0.3 hour flight. The pp is making the trip to build xc hours for instrument rating requirements. No money is being exchanged. It's a free ride for the friend. Is this a problem? I ask since the reason to pick the remote airport is that of someone else.
Click to expand...

If the PP pays the whole tab, then this whole issue is irrelevant.

OK, if you advertise that you will take anyone anywhere for free, that may be a problem - but in general, flying around on your dime? You are good to go.
 
Mattl said:
Another hypothetical question-

A pp flys to a remote airport to pick up a friend. The premise of the trip is two fold- one to pick up the friend so they don't have to make the x hour drive in one way rental car vs x*0.3 hour flight. The pp is making the trip to build xc hours for instrument rating requirements. No money is being exchanged. It's a free ride for the friend. Is this a problem? I ask since the reason to pick the remote airport is that of someone else.
Click to expand...
There is no rule against giving people truly free rides as long as it really is free with no conditions attached. Those allegedly free rides in connection with a paid-for resort stay, or fishing trip, or whatever, is what I'm thinking of when I say "no conditions."
 
Originally Posted by ChrisK<br />
Ok, so.. I say "hey I'm going on Saturday want to come and share costs?" and one of my friends says "I'm busy Saturday how about Sunday" and we all say "that's fine".<br />
<br />
That one is on the bad list.
Click to expand...
Yup. Common purpose just went away when you indicated your willingess to fit your schedule to your paying passsenger's.<br />
<br />
Click to expand...

I disagree that flexibility in plans negates common purpose, and invite you to produce any official opinions in writing on this from the FAA or Chief Counsel.

The common purpose is having lunch with my friend, and flying there to do it. If I initiate the request, and have the flexibility to do it tomorrow instead of today, nothing regarding common purpose changes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top