REFLECTOR: Splitting Flying Costs

[Douglas Holub]

Willie,

I think you're being a little severe with the "common purpose" test. In the documents you cited, the example was a pilot who wanted to get some flight instruction in at a reduced cost by sharing expenses with two guys who needed to go to Memphis. The pilot didn't want to go to Memphis-- he didn't care where he was going; he just wanted to get some flight instruction. The pilot and the accompanying flight instructor got their licenses suspended. But if Alex wants to go to Oklahoma to see a Sonerai project and I want to go to Oklahoma to see Noel's Velocity project, we do share a common purpose: we both want to go to Oklahoma. I don't think it matters if the pilot and passengers want to do different things when they get there. (Although, as a matter of fact, I do want to see the Sonerai project, too.)

Doug
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Willie.Sanchez at mail.cuny.edu 
  To: reflector at tvbf.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:12 PM
  Subject: REFLECTOR: Splitting Flying Costs



  All, 

  I will preface this by saying, I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. 

  The splitting of cost with friends while flying is a very tricky question and not as straight forward as it seems.  The basic rules are spelled out in 
  FAR 61.118(b). 

  As an example, suppose you were taking a flight from HPN to MVY for a round of golf, your friend says 'Hey, my mother lives on the Vineyard, can I fly up with you and split the expenses 
  for flying?'  You say sure...fly round trip and split the cost 50/50.  Sounds like a legit noncommercial flight and the split is legal right?  Well, if you 
  answered right....you'd be wrong.  At issue is what the FAA has deemed 'commonality of purpose'. 
  Since your buddy was not going to play golf with you, his trip with you in this case would be ruled commercial because you both took the trip for 
  different reasons and therefore you flew him there for hire. 

  In the situation being raised by Doug not taking any money would probably be the best thing, if he did, the part of the rule that would burn him would be the third part of that FAR: 

  The third important limitation is that the pilot must be going on the flight for his 
  or her own purpose. The sole purpose of the flight may not be to provide 
  transportation to the passengers. This has been my interpretation for many 
  years. In recent years, the FAA has been taking a more restrictive view. The FAA 
  says not only must the pilot be going on the flight for his or her own purpose, but 
  the purpose must be "common" with the passengers. 


  It is quite possible that in Doug's situation even if he received no compensation, his friend did and the flight might be considered charter nonetheless.  (see third and fourth citation below). 

  So in general, probably the safest bet is don't take any money from your passengers unless you meet the commonality of purpose criteria, make sure they are not making money on your flight and 
  definitely don't take a check ;-) 

  Here are a few  interesting articles on this subject: 

  http://home.pcisys.net/~aghorash/SharingExpenses.pdf 
  http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html 
  http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4583.PDF 
  http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/docs/aviation/4791.PDF 

  Hope this helps or further confuses. 


  Willie Sanchez, Co-pilot N104MW



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  To change your email address, visit http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector

  Visit the gallery!  www.tvbf.org/gallery
  user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
  Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
  Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/private/reflector/attachments/20090624/95733e98/attachment.htm>