Ownership and passengers

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.

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.

However, if a co-owner said, "I need to go to Podunk on Saturday and I can't
fly PIC until I finish this medication, how about flying me down?, I would
think that your co-responsibility for the aircraft management and
maintenance and similar factors would make this OK.

If you co-owner said, "I need to be on Podunk on Saturday and my wife would
like to meet me on Saturday, how about flying her up and we'll have lunch?",
I would think that would be OK even though it would be questionable in the
case of a non-co-owner.

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

I fly whomever I feel like flying wherever I feel like going. I never ask
for or accept compensation. The trouble is that I find it hard to get away
to fly so whenever I can I do. I love going to places I've never been. So
if I'm going someplace it might as well be where someone else is going, at
least then I feel less guilty for using the fuel. However, mostly it is
just sightseeing trips, which I am always up for as I always go someplace
new.


"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.

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.

However, if a co-owner said, "I need to go to Podunk on Saturday and I
can't
fly PIC until I finish this medication, how about flying me down?, I
would
think that your co-responsibility for the aircraft management and
maintenance and similar factors would make this OK.

If you co-owner said, "I need to be on Podunk on Saturday and my wife
would
like to meet me on Saturday, how about flying her up and we'll have
lunch?",
I would think that would be OK even though it would be questionable in the
case of a non-co-owner.

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

In article ,
Roger Long om wrote:
The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately.

You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever,
wherever, for free.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message news:Xh_gb.715284$uu5.116972@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
Roger Long om wrote:
The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a
private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately.

You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever,
wherever, for free.

Nope. Common carriage isn't permitted even if you don't charge.

Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise. The funeral example actually
came from the explanation someone at AOPA gave me. If you are in a gray
area, not cost sharing will certainly help your case. It might also turn an
action into a warning.

The FAA will base their decision largely on what they think the passenger
perceives which will largely depend on what the passenger says. People's
natural instinct to appear grateful can get you into trouble even if the
flight was legit. Passenger gushes to FAA during ramp check, "Oh, it was so
wonderful of him to fly me down here, I know he's so busy and it was out of
his way!" You're busted. Make sure your passengers know what to say.

--
Roger Long
Ben Jackson wrote in message
news:Xh_gb.715284$uu5.116972@sccrnsc04...
In article ,
Roger Long om wrote:
The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of
whether a
private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately.

You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever,
wherever, for free.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

"Roger Long" om writes:

The FAA will base their decision largely on what they think the passenger
perceives which will largely depend on what the passenger says. People's
natural instinct to appear grateful can get you into trouble even if the
flight was legit. Passenger gushes to FAA during ramp check, "Oh, it was so
wonderful of him to fly me down here, I know he's so busy and it was out of
his way!" You're busted. Make sure your passengers know what to
say.

Would the same thing apply to driving someone to a funeral, if you
don't have a commercial driver's license of some kind?


All the best,


David

Nope.

Two entirely different regulatory regimes, expectations, and sets of rules.

--
Roger Long

Would the same thing apply to driving someone to a funeral, if you
don't have a commercial driver's license of some kind?


All the best,


David

"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)

But there's also the question of what constitutes compensation. I remember
reading
about a case where someone was busted because even though they didn't take
any money, the passenger was an established customer of their business and
it
was argued that the compensation was expectation of future business. Suppose
I fly my boss somewhere, it could be argued that the compensation is
expectation
of a pay-rise (fat chance) or other job-related benefits

John

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
"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)

as a student pilot who busts you and who questions you how do they find out
ect.



"John Harper" wrote in message
news:1065653712.292352@sj-nntpcache-5...
But there's also the question of what constitutes compensation. I remember
reading
about a case where someone was busted because even though they didn't take
any money, the passenger was an established customer of their business and
it
was argued that the compensation was expectation of future business.
Suppose
I fly my boss somewhere, it could be argued that the compensation is
expectation
of a pay-rise (fat chance) or other job-related benefits

John

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
"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)