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)