![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Matthew Waugh" wrote in message .com...
"Yossarian" wrote in message et... Hypothetical situation: I rent a plane and fly 2 friends to city A. I drop them off and fly back. If I pay 1/3 of the rental time and costs going there and full amount of the return leg, that's legal, right? What was your reason for going to city A? If all you did was drop them off then your reason would appear to have been the transportation of your 2 friends. This makes it illegal. If you have a reason to go to city A and take your friends along and they share the cost, that would be legal. Mat Actually, not only must you have a reason for going to city A, but you must have a common purpose as well. There have been numerous NTSB decisions in which the pilot paid only his share of the costs, but because there was no common purpose (e.g., you are both going to see a baseball game together) the flight was considered an unauthorized Part 135 flight and thus the pilot was sanctioned. In one example, NTSB Order EA-4306, a pilot was receiving multi-engine flight instruction from a CFI. The (non-CFI) pilot on his own arranged to share costs with two TV reporters who needed transportation. The passangers paid only thier share of the costs. Both the pilot and the CFI were found to be operating under Part 135 without proper certification and received suspensions of their pilot certificates due to the fact that their was no common purpose. The purpose for the pilot was to receive multi-engine training while the purpose for the TV crew was to receive transportation. Even though the CFI was unaware of the arrangement, it was determined that as PIC, he was responsible for determining the purpose of the passangers, and knowing that this would be an illegal flight (i.e., not asking questions does not make you immune). Other examples I've seen include pilots trying to apply the "shared expenses" exception to parachute jump operations with the jumpper paying thier share of the costs. I'm sure there are other examples more closely resembling the transportation to city A scenario, but I haven't made a concerted effort to look for them. However, the common theme of all of these decisions is that the "shared expenses" exception only applies when there is a "common purpose" among the pilot and passangers. Jeffery Hansen, CFI-A |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Handheld battery question | RobsSanta | General Aviation | 8 | September 19th 04 03:07 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question | jlauer | Home Built | 7 | November 16th 03 01:51 AM |
Question about Question 4488 | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 3 | October 27th 03 01:26 AM |
Partnership Question | Harry Gordon | Owning | 4 | August 16th 03 11:23 PM |