"FAA Bans GA Ride Sharing Companies"

I did not say Alaska made a difference.
You wrote:
Well, yeah, in Alaskan communities you'll know when someone in town is flying out and you may catch a ride for some gas money, but the provisions are in the FARs to allow specifically for that kind of stuff.
That sure appears to say there was some sort of provision for Alaska. I gather now you did not intend to say that anything at all was different about the provisions for expense sharing in Alaska, and that common purpose is interpreted the same there as in the other 49 states.
 
You might be correct when considering interpretations and intent, but purely reading 61.113 shows that it is a limitation on "Private Pilots" and never mentions anything about people who hold a commercial certificate. My understanding is that unlike ratings a "private certificate" is distinct from a "commercial certificate". That is if I hold a "commercial certificate" I do not hold a "private pilot certificate".
True as far as it goes, but there is nothing in 61.133 allowing you to receive compensation from passengers in return for providing air transportation as opposed to providing pilot services or acting as PIC for hire/compensation. That exception appears only in 61.113, and since Private Privileges included in your CP ticket, those limitations apply in this case.

My understanding is that *without* "Holding Out" and *with* a "Common Purpose" it does not fit the other definitions of "air transport for hire" and thus does not invoke Part 135.
Nothing in 61.133 authorizes a CP to provide air transportation for hire. That falls under Part 119, from which the Part 135 certificate requirement derives when we're talking about air transportation for hire/compensation as opposed to providing pilot services for hire/compensation or acting as PIC when passengers are paying (regardless of who is receiving the money).

Edit: And specifically 61.133 which specifies the same things for Commercial Pilot and would seem to apply in lieu of 61.113 does not contain any "pro-rata" wording and instead states that Commercial Privileges can be used "provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation". Without "Holding out" and with a "common purpose" does part 91 or part 135 apply?
As stated in Part 119 (which is another applicable part of Chapter 14), Part 135 most definitely applies in the sort of flight contemplated unless all the requirements for the 61.113(c) exception are met.
 
Last edited:
Modify it. Commercial Pilot loves to stay within the corridor within 25SM of his airport of departure and lands only back there, gets insurance to haul rides and goes down to the local Industrial Medical Clinic and gets on a DOT MRO overseen drug screen program or keeps the receipt from a clean test <90 days old with him and gets his blessing from the FSDO to haul sightseeing flights under PT. 119, they can do so all day long with signs and advertising and holding out and all that to try and make a go of it. The insurance is the tough part, that's gonna be about $9k a year in your typical GA plane. The drug tests are $35 a whack or you can get in a program for $100 a year and they'll do the initial, put you in a pool of others for random screening, and provide whatever compliance letter that is required.

Nope, unfortunately this corridor is further than 25SM from the closest GA airport so can't modify this case...
 
So, what do we think about this situation:

Pilot, living in a very cool city, likes to fly around a VFR corridor over a river, past the city.
Would do this every day, if financially possible.

Offers in facebook, saying any friends or friends of a friend, who want to fly with me, let me know. Strict about paying his own share for the flight (if there's 2 people, its rental cost/2, if 3, rntal cost/3 etc).

There is a common purpose, pilot enjoys the view and will never get bored of it. There is no "destination" apart from the Hooters after the flight, and offering it in facebook to people you know hardly is offering it for anyone.
Pilot also is not for hire. If he didn't feel like going, he didn't go.
I think the Chief Counsel would say it doesn't fit within 61.113(c), but if you really want to know, feel free to write to them and ask.
 
You wrote:
That sure appears to say there was some sort of provision for Alaska. I gather now you did not intend to say that anything at all was different about the provisions for expense sharing in Alaska, and that common purpose is interpreted the same there as in the other 49 states.

Try reading the post in the context of the post it was responding to. No where did I state or infer a limitation to Alaska.
 
Nope, unfortunately this corridor is further than 25SM from the closest GA airport so can't modify this case...

Yep, won't work, that's the only way you can haul rides without a 135 cert unless you're hauling photographers/ aerial survey crew. Then the distance limitation disappears but you still have to land back where you took off.
 
Yep, won't work, that's the only way you can haul rides without a 135 cert unless you're hauling photographers/ aerial survey crew. Then the distance limitation disappears but you still have to land back where you took off.

But we have common purpose, and I'm not advertising for it.
 
You think you have common purpose. I'm not sure the Chief Counsel would agree. Wanna bet your ticket on the outcome? :no:

I take it for granted that he knows what his purpose is. The problem is proving what his purpose is.
 
You think you have common purpose. I'm not sure the Chief Counsel would agree. Wanna bet your ticket on the outcome? :no:

Yes I think we have a common purpose. Chief Counsel hasn't disagreed. What is the problem?

I'd like to see CC's opinion about this case. Without one, it is allowed.
 
I think the Chief Counsel would say it doesn't fit within 61.113(c), but if you really want to know, feel free to write to them and ask.

It safer to just discuss it here (unless he's actually planning to conduct the operation in question).
 
It safer to just discuss it here (unless he's actually planning to conduct the operation in question).

Operation isn't the word I would use for this fully imagined situation.

Just saying on a private forum, that anyone willing to fly 12 hours to get to a city, and willing to share costs, we can go do a very cool 1hr trip around a very cool city.
Big difference from "Anyone; lets go flying around a very cool city!"
 
How so? He didn't even understand Henning.

dtuuri
Exactly. Henning made a concise and simple observation on the application of shared expense for a common purpose to a real situation in a practical no-nonsense way. Not one of thoise, "how about if my group is only made up of blond transvestites who

Apparently that's not allowed, at least not without changing it to mean more than it said and doing a regulatory pin dance on it.

You wrote:

[snip and emphasize] the provisions are in the FARs to allow specifically for that kind of stuff [/snip]
That sure appears to say there was some sort of provision for Alaska. I gather now you did not intend to say that anything at all was different about the provisions for expense sharing in Alaska, and that common purpose is interpreted the same there as in the other 49 states.

See what I mean? A parsing worthy of roncachamp!

This would make a good poll - Was Henning using Alaska:
(1) as an example of sharing for a common purpose;
(2) as a statement that some extra special regulation existed softening the sharing rule in Alaksa

I'm voting for (1)
 
Last edited:
I take it for granted that he knows what his purpose is. The problem is proving what his purpose is.
No, the problem is getting the Chief Counsel to agree that it fits the FAA's common purpose definition, and I think that won't happen.
 
Yes I think we have a common purpose. Chief Counsel hasn't disagreed. What is the problem?

I'd like to see CC's opinion about this case. Without one, it is allowed.
I have no opinion about your scenario, But the highlighted statement is simply incorrect.

Especially in the grey area between Part 91 and Part 135, not every improper scenario that can be thought up by creative minds will be with subject of a pre-existing interpretation or enforcement decision. That's exactly why it's grey to begin with.

The way one usually finds out about whether the scenario is ok or not is by (a) asking the Chief Counsel (whether it's a good idea or not depends) or (b) doing it and coming to the attention of the FAA because of an incident, a complaint, or an inspector casually browsing around the airport.
 
Yes I think we have a common purpose. Chief Counsel hasn't disagreed. What is the problem?

I'd like to see CC's opinion about this case. Without one, it is allowed.
Not so. According to the US Court of Appeals, the Chief Counsel need not advance a new interpretation in advance of an enforcement action alleging a violation. Since forgiveness isn't part of the FAA's policy in this sort of thing, I suggest not pushing the envelope without asking first, because once a violation goes on your record, by order of Congress, it stays there forever.
 
You might be correct when considering interpretations and intent, but purely reading 61.113 shows that it is a limitation on "Private Pilots" and never mentions anything about people who hold a commercial certificate. My understanding is that unlike ratings a "private certificate" is distinct from a "commercial certificate". That is if I hold a "commercial certificate" I do not hold a "private pilot certificate". This would be different from ratings where I can have a multi-engine, instrument, SES, etc, ie, ratings are cumulative. If you do not hold a "private pilot certificate" then reading 61.113 no section would apply. Maybe that's a misconception about the different between certificates and ratings?

Of course I do not doubt that there could be some interpretation I am missing, or that you are broadly correct but the reason is not 61.113.

My understanding is that *without* "Holding Out" and *with* a "Common Purpose" it does not fit the other definitions of "air transport for hire" and thus does not invoke Part 135. If this is the case it would seem that CPL could accept more than pro-rata share since the wording of 61.113 does not appear to mention Commercial Pilot Certificate holders.


Edit: And specifically 61.133 which specifies the same things for Commercial Pilot and would seem to apply in lieu of 61.113 does not contain any "pro-rata" wording and instead states that Commercial Privileges can be used "provided the person is qualified in accordance with this part and with the applicable parts of this chapter that apply to the operation". Without "Holding out" and with a "common purpose" does part 91 or part 135 apply?

I believe you are still a private pilot when you are a commercial pilot. You are both. So 61.113 would apply.

I'm looking for authority for that, but I do see:

the shared expenses exception toapplicability of Part 135 does not apply here, as there was no
common purpose in the flight
in Administrator v. Henson (1994), where a commercial pilot did not properly set up a shared expense flight and operated an illegal charter, implying that it would have been permissible for a commercial pilot to qualify under the 61.113(c) exception.
 
No, the problem is getting the Chief Counsel to agree that it fits the FAA's common purpose definition, and I think that won't happen.

The definition I recall is that the pilot and the passengers must each have their own reasons for going to the destination, and the pilot's reason must not involve compensation. Is that not correct?
 
The definition I recall is that the pilot and the passengers must each have their own reasons for going to the destination, and the pilot's reason must not involve compensation. Is that not correct?
See the Reich letter: "There is no common purpose when a pilot is flying to a destination where he or she has no particular business to conduct." IOW, just generally wanting to go fly or go sightseeing from the air doesn't meet the standard -- the pilot must be going to that particular place to do something specific there. However, there's nothing that says the pilot's reason for going to that destination can't involve compensation for something other than piloting services or the provision of air transportation, e.g., the pilot is going to be paid for his/her nonaviation services while on the ground there. In addition, per several other interpretation letters, the pilot must have a reason to going there on that date - no adjustment of travel dates to accommodate the passengers.
 
See the Reich letter: "There is no common purpose when a pilot is flying to a destination where he or she has no particular business to conduct."...

That's an odd interpretation, because it seems to ban expense sharing for flights where the purpose is purely recreational. I think the Chief Counsel's office has gone off the deep end with that statement.
 
That's an odd interpretation, because it seems to ban expense sharing for flights where the purpose is purely recreational.
I don't see that. "Personal business" is sufficient and you don't have to be getting paid to be there in order to meet this standard. For example, they have previously said that if you have tickets to a ball game or an invitation to a wedding, that will do. See Haberkorn, page 3, paragraph 2. But sightseeing from the air as a "purpose" independent of the flight itself? I don't see them buying that as "personal business to conduct".
 
That's an odd interpretation, because it seems to ban expense sharing for flights where the purpose is purely recreational. I think the Chief Counsel's office has gone off the deep end with that statement.

I think that is a turn of phrase meant for that specific situation.

See the Article, Come Fly with Me, in the Sept/OCt 2010 issue of FAA Safety Briefing, mentioned in Haberkorn.

This doesn’t mean that you can’t ask people to fly with you and share some of the costs, but the sole purpose of your flight can’t be just to transport your passengers from one point
to another. 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.
 
...But sightseeing from the air as a "purpose" independent of the flight itself? I don't see them buying that as "personal business to conduct".

If that's what they mean, then I think they've gone off the deep end.
 
No, in response to the post regarding this policy somehow making it harder to be a Good Samaritan or do someone a favor, I said Good Samaritans don't charge their passengers. If you're charging for the service, it's not a "favor".
It might be. And as far as legality is concerned I don't think there's any difference between asking someone to pay their pro rata share and accepting it when someone offers.

If someone is going to a place you also want to go, and they take you along, they are doing you a favor even if you end up paying your share.
 
I fly up to Maryland and then fly Ron to Pennsylvania with no common purpose. Then I fly home because I don't need to be in Pennsylvania because there is no common purpose. I log all the time and pay for all the costs in my own plane. I am a private pilot. Is the logging of hours compensation where the 61.113(c) exception would not apply?

Under Bobertz, you would think so.

Generally, accrual of flight time is compensation and the FAA does not enter into a case-by-case analysis to determine whether the logging of flight time is of value to a particular pilot.


Under Dias, you would think not.

In such cases, the FAA has permitted these flights to be conducted under part 91 provided the pilot receives no compensation for the flight. Id.; see generally Legal Interpretation to John W. Harrington (Oct. 23, 1997) ("t has been the FAA's long-standing policy to define compensation in very broad terms" including any reimbursement of expenses and "the building up of flight time ... if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft."). Reimbursement for any operating expenses constitutes compensation, and the FAA considers such a flight a commercial operation requiring a part 119 certificate.
 
I fly up to Maryland and then fly Ron to Pennsylvania with no common purpose. Then I fly home because I don't need to be in Pennsylvania because there is no common purpose. I log all the time and pay for all the costs in my own plane. I am a private pilot. Is the logging of hours compensation where the 61.113(c) exception would not apply?

Under Bobertz, you would think so.




Under Dias, you would think not.

I was under the impression that compensation (as used in the phrase "for compensation or hire") was the receipt of something of value from someone else in return for providing a service or product. In your scenario, you are receiving the logged flight hours from yourself, because you paid 100% of the costs. If the FAA ever starts claiming that providing something of value to yourself is compensation, then I will know for sure that they have lost all touch with reality.
 
Last edited:
I fly up to Maryland and then fly Ron to Pennsylvania with no common purpose. Then I fly home because I don't need to be in Pennsylvania because there is no common purpose. I log all the time and pay for all the costs in my own plane. I am a private pilot. Is the logging of hours compensation where the 61.113(c) exception would not apply?

Under Bobertz, you would think so.



Under Dias, you would think not.


:confused: How would hours you pay for be compensation?:dunno: What did you expect, or have cause to expect in return for that ride? That is where the question lies.
 
That's where the FAA has been a little loose in these letters.
 
OK. I own a construction company. I set up Construction Company Flight, LLC, to own 1/2 of a Baron. Construction Company Flight, LLC, is owned 100% by Construciton Company, Inc. I am a commercial pilot and I am a 1/2 owner and president of Construction Company, Inc. Construction Company Inc, pays all of the costs of operating the flights. I log the hours.

Can I carry employees or other passengers on flights incidental to the business of Construction Company, Inc., in the Baron?
 
OK. I own a construction company. I set up Construction Company Flight, LLC, to own 1/2 of a Baron. Construction Company Flight, LLC, is owned 100% by Construciton Company, Inc. I am a commercial pilot and I am a 1/2 owner and president of Construction Company, Inc. Construction Company Inc, pays all of the costs of operating the flights. I log the hours.

Can I carry employees or other passengers on flights incidental to the business of Construction Company, Inc., in the Baron?

Yes... You are a CP, you can be compensated. The passengers are being brought to/from remote jobs site to work or survey, no worries, this is what Business Aviation is all about and it operates under Pt 91.
 
Last edited:
I fly up to Maryland and then fly Ron to Pennsylvania with no common purpose. Then I fly home because I don't need to be in Pennsylvania because there is no common purpose. I log all the time and pay for all the costs in my own plane. I am a private pilot. Is the logging of hours compensation where the 61.113(c) exception would not apply?
Since you paid all the costs, there is no violation. You haven't been compensated by anyone except yourself, and that's OK. The problem arises is when you receive compensation from someone else for providing air transportation to someone else. Since I'm not paying for the ride, it's perfectly OK for you to do me a favor by running me up to Lancaster to pick up my plane at Lancaster Avionics.

That said, if I happen to buy you lunch at Fiorentino's while we're there, it better be because I just felt like it and not because I was giving you lunch in exchange for the ride -- that would be a quid pro quo, and constitute prohibited compensation.

Under Bobertz, you would think so.
The pilot in the Bobertz memo was collecting money from all passengers. That's the problem. He could certainly have given them all free rides legally, but once he started taking money, the line was crossed.

Under Dias, you would think not.
Dias makes clear that it's only a problem "if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft". Since in your scenario, you're paying all the costs and logging all the time, there's no problem.

So relax and enjoy your lunch, and please don't fight me for the check and I guarantee I won't tell the FAA, "I bought David lunch in return for a ride to Lancaster." :D
 
Last edited:
I was under the impression that compensation (as used in the phrase "for compensation or hire") was the receipt of something of value from someone else in return for providing a service or product.
Your impression is correct. In the words of Dr. Lector, "Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo," and it's OK to get something of value for yourself if you pay for it yourself.

In your scenario, you are receiving the logged flight hours from yourself, because you paid 100% of the costs. If the FAA ever starts claiming that providing something of value to yourself is compensation, then I will know for sure that they have lost all touch with reality.
They ain't gonna do that, and they said so in the Dias letter.
 
OK. I own a construction company. I set up Construction Company Flight, LLC, to own 1/2 of a Baron. Construction Company Flight, LLC, is owned 100% by Construciton Company, Inc. I am a commercial pilot and I am a 1/2 owner and president of Construction Company, Inc. Construction Company Inc, pays all of the costs of operating the flights. I log the hours.

Can I carry employees or other passengers on flights incidental to the business of Construction Company, Inc., in the Baron?
Yes -- as a Commercial Pilot, you're legal to be compensated for flying CCI's plane on CCI's business, including carrying company employees or guests wherever the company says it's OK to take them. That's what tens of thousands of corporate pilots do every day. Just make sure you have a medical valid as Second Class or better to legally exercise those CP privileges. Just no charging the passengers for the ride -- CCI would need a 135 certificate to do that.
 
That's where the FAA has been a little loose in these letters.
Not at all. They have made clear that if you pay for the flight, you're legal. The only exception to that is when you have a business relationship with the other party involved and there is the potential for future consideration in return for the ride -- that's where this pilot fell afoul of the rules even though he paid for the flight himself. OTOH, when the FAA went after this pilot, the lack of any business relationship with the other parties and the fact that he paid for the flight himself got him off the hook.
 
So it looks like if I don't get compensation, the rule doesn't apply. How about the holding out rule?

I create a website, I give out flyers, put all over town that I'll give free rides to people. Call me, we'll talk, and if I like you I'll give you your free ride.

Can I do that as a private pilot?
Say I pay all the costs and I accept absolutely nothing from the people I fly.

(Sorry if it's been clarified before, I had to skip some of the posts).
 
OK. I own a construction company. I set up Construction Company Flight, LLC, to own 1/2 of a Baron. Construction Company Flight, LLC, is owned 100% by Construciton Company, Inc. I am a commercial pilot and I am a 1/2 owner and president of Construction Company, Inc. Construction Company Inc, pays all of the costs of operating the flights. I log the hours.

Can I carry employees or other passengers on flights incidental to the business of Construction Company, Inc., in the Baron?

Yes, if you also have a 2nd class or better medical.

John
 
Not at all. They have made clear that if you pay for the flight, you're legal. The only exception to that is when you have a business relationship with the other party involved and there is the potential for future consideration in return for the ride -- that's where this pilot fell afoul of the rules even though he paid for the flight himself. ...

What Ron omitts is that 'this pilot' #1' business relation consisted of multiple flights carrying dozens of people he had never met who had bought tickets that included air transportation because he was trying to help friend, Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald had sold a bunch expensive tickets to a Superbowl party at Mr. Fitzgerald's bar.

Mr. Ed’s charged a flat price for the party, and it included air transportation.

Apparently, if arrangements had been made
by Mr. Fitzgerald with air charter operators, they had fallen
through. There were people who had paid to be flown to Put-In-
Bay for whom there was no transportation available and,
apparently, respondent came to the rescue.

....The passengers, who had paid for the
flight, expected a licensed, qualified operator and a qualified
pilot. Instead, all they got was a private pilot who was not
certificated for commercial flight. Respondent’s attitude
precluded him from considering any negative safety aspects of
these activities. And his negative compliance disposition
continued throughout the hearing.

...

Nevertheless, compensation need
not be direct nor in the form of money. Goodwill is a form of
prohibited compensation. Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409
(1982).

...

The evidence establishes that, not only was respondent a
friend of Mr. Fitzgerald, but he had done work for him in the
past. Interpreting the facts in a way most favorable to
respondent and assuming that he really had no expectation of any
kind of benefit, strains credulity. Respondent testified that
these flights cost him about $1100. The law judge, who had the
opportunity to witness respondent’s demeanor, judged his
credibility and rejected his Good Samaritan argument. The law
judge was unable to accept respondent’s claim that he would
freely transport people he did not know at a personal expense of over $1000 simply for pleasure.

While the 1982 opinion that goodwill can be compensation is probably not supported in federal law, taken the totally of this situation I can't blame the FAA for slapping this pilot on the wrist. The guy did pretty clearly violate parts 119 and 61.

I don't think you can conclude from this case that if I fly a business associate to Llano for some BBQ that the FAA would come after me the way they did this guy.

For one reason, the FAA law clerks would know that this would be a good way to get their bogus 1982 opinion that non-tangible things like goodwill are compensation laughed out of Federal Court.

Think about that. If earning 'goodwill' was compensation then the IRS would want 1099's from every salesman who took a prospect to lunch!
 
So it looks like if I don't get compensation, the rule doesn't apply. How about the holding out rule?
The "holding out rule" applies to holding out to the public an offer of air transportation for hire/compensation. So, you can "hold out" to anyone you like an offer of a free ride without violating any rules.

I create a website, I give out flyers, put all over town that I'll give free rides to people. Call me, we'll talk, and if I like you I'll give you your free ride.

Can I do that as a private pilot?
Say I pay all the costs and I accept absolutely nothing from the people I fly.
Sure. Charity with no strings attached is legal -- just expensive. Just make sure that when you decide if you like them, it's not because you're getting something in return from them.
 
Back
Top