"Roger Long" om wrote in message . ..
The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. One is evidence
that the passenger is incidentally aboard on a flight that was going to take
place anyway. Second is that the pilot and passenger have a shared interest
in the objective of the flight.

Disagree. The above would be true if limited to flights where some
form of compensation (like cost sharing) was involved. Commonality of
purporse only comes into effect in determining whether the
compensation was allowed under the rules. No compensation, no
question.


In the case of co-ownership, such as in a partnership or flying club (with
stock), would there not be a presumption of shared interest?

For example:

Strictly speaking, if a friend not involved with your aircraft said. "I need
to go to Podunk on Saturday, how about flying me up there?", the flight
would be questionable if you had no prior intent or independent reason to
fly there.

Only if you were compensated by the friend. If you paid all costs
associated with the flight, it's perfectly legal.
snip

Anyone care to predict what the FAA would (or should) say? Assume costs
shared properly according to seat occupancy.

Are we assuming this in all examples? If so, forget what I said
above.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)