Ownership and passengers

Dave Butler wrote
Angel Flight and its cousins are special. much snipped
What it says, basically, is that if a person takes a charitable tax
deduction for the costs associated with the operation that does not
constitute a for hire or compensation operation.

Well, that's fine. But supposing you didn't even take a tax
deduction.

The point remains that Angel Flight and similar operations are
providing both pilot and aircraft, for point-to-point on-demand
flights, day and night, VFR and IFR. And it's all legal, without need
for waivers of any kind - because no money is changing hands.
Therefore, all the nonsense about needing a common purpose even if
costs are not shared is just that - nonsense.

The stuff you posted merely tells the inspectors that whatever their
personal opinion on the issue might be, they are NOT to treat the tax
deduction as money changing hands.

Michael

"Michael" wrote in message om...
"Roger Long" om
wrote
Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise.

And they are both flagrantly, egregiously wrong. That's why I'm not
an AOPA member. As for the FSDO - well, they're a bunch of worthless
bloody loonies.
Yeah, but it's the bloody loonies who are running the show.

"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)

MRQB wrote:

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

The local FAA inspectors bust you. It is typically done either because some
"friend" or vicious FBO complained (the argument usually being that you "took
money away from them" by flying him for less). It can also occur by accident if
an inspector is in the FBO and overhears a chance remark by either you or your
passenger (or sees money change hands). Your chances of the latter are much
reduced on weekends, since few inspectors work weekends (at least in this area).

In short, if you and your passengers keep your mouths completely shut, there's
next to no chance of you getting busted.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

Roger Long wrote:

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

If you have to ask, you *know* what the FAA will say. "Excuse me, sir. Can we
have that piece of paper we gave you that says you can fly back?"

The solution is simple. Don't share costs for stuff like that. The immediate
expenses of my Maule are about $20 an hour. If I don't like someone well enough
to fly him an hour or two for free, then I don't fly him.

Now, if someone wants to go to Oshkosh and *I* want to go to Oshkosh, it's a
different matter, but that's not the case here.

Don't sweat the small stuff.

George Patterson
God grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the
good fortune to run into the ones I like, and the eyesight to tell the
difference.

I'm not sure I agree with your hair-splitting. In everything official I've
seen from the FAA the matter seems to revolve only around whether the pilot
is compensated for acting as a pilot (beyond sharing of expenses). As a
private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
have otherwise undertaken the flight.

--
-Elliott Drucker

wrote in message ...
I'm not sure I agree with your hair-splitting. In everything official I've
seen from the FAA the matter seems to revolve only around whether the pilot
is compensated for acting as a pilot (beyond sharing of expenses).

You haven't looked very hard.

As a
private pilot you are certainly allowed to provide transportation to another
person, provided no compensation is paid, regardless of whether you would
have otherwise undertaken the flight.

This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message om...

This is certainly NOT the case. The FAA has repeatedly struck down ride
share operations that involve no money changing hands (not pilot compensation,.
not even expenxes). There are two things the FAA has interpretted that throw
a monkey wrench into things: non-monetary compensation (such as the accrual
of flight time), and carrying passengers in air commerce (not a private vs. commercial
issue but a part 91 vs. 135 one).


The non-monetary compensation (i.e. flight time) issue that I know
of, involved someone else paying for the operating expenses of the
plane. This is not an issue for private pilots who are absorbing the
full cost of the flight. The "absorbing the full cost" is the key,
rather than just not accepting monetary payment.

I think the point that Elliott was trying to make is that there a
few restictions on a private pilot flying someone for any
non-commercial reason, as long as the pilot pays for the cost of the
flight. Does that sound reasonable? I know it doesn't count, but
I've asked several local FSDO inspectors and they agree with that
interpretation.

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