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
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.

If they were even a little bit right, how could organizations like
Angel Flight possibly operate?

Michael

Michael wrote:

If they were even a little bit right, how could organizations like
Angel Flight possibly operate?

Angel Flight and its cousins are special. See for example
http://www.aircareall.org/tax.htm where it quotes our old friend Rick Cremer
(who used to contribute to this newsgroup):

762019 S15/FAA Topics
23-Feb-95 11:17:31
Sb #ANGEL FLIGHT POLICY
Fm Rick Cremer FAA HQ 72130,3305
To ALL

FAA "ANGEL FLIGHT" POLICY

Recently, the FAA published Change 10 to it's Air Transportation Inspector's
handbook (FAA Order 8400.10). That change included new guidance for our
inspectors concerning Angel Flights. Included below, is the full text of
guidance. 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.

Best Regards

Rick Cremer FAA HDQ



FAA Order 8400.10, Vol. 4, Chap. 5, Sect. 1, Para 1345 12/20/94

1345. FAA POLICY REGARDING "COMPENSATION OR HIRE" CONSIDERATIONS

FOR CHARITABLE FLIGHTS OR LIFE FLIGHTS. Various organizations and pilots are
conducting flights that are characterized as "volunteer," "charity," or
"humanitarian." These flights are referred to by numerous generic names,
including "lifeline flights," "life flights," "mercy flights," and "angel
flights." These types of flights will be referred to as "life flights" in this
section.

A. Purposes for Life Flights. The types of organizations and pilots involved
with or conducting life flights vary greatly. The most common purpose of life
flights is to transport ill or injured persons who cannot financially afford
commercial transport to appropriate medical treatment facilities, or to
transport blood or human organs. Other "compassionate flights" include
transporting a child to visit with a dying relative, or transporting a dying
patient to return to the city of the patient's birth.

B. FAA Policy. The FAA's policy supports "truly humanitarian efforts" to provide
life flights to needy persons (including "compassionate flights"). This also
includes flights involving the transfer of blood and human organs. Since
Congress has specifically provided for the tax deductibility of some costs of
charitable acts, the FAA will not treat charitable deductions of such costs,
standing alone, as constituting "compensation or hire" for the purpose of
enforcement of FAR 61.118 or FAR Part 135. Inspectors should not treat the tax
deductibility of costs as constituting "compensation or hire" when the flights
are conducted for humanitarian purposes.

"Dave Butler" wrote:

Angel Flight and its cousins are special.

Only inasmuch as accepting a tax deduction for the charitable flight is not
deemed to be compensatory. Angel Flight pilots still take relative
strangers where they need to go, even if it wasn't exactly the pilot's
original idea to go there.

The notion that it is "questionable" to take a friend (someone known to you)
anywhere he wants to go per his request just because it wasn't the pilot's
prior intention to fly that route that day is an absurdly tortured
interpretation of the rules. If my friend calls me from Fresno because his
car is broken down and he needs a ride home, it doesn't matter whether I go
pick him up in my car or my airplane.