Compensation vs. Cost sharing?

"Mark Morissette" wrote in message
...
Hey everyone.. Since I'm in Canada, and the rules are somewhat
different here in many regards, I'm pretty sure this will remain a
relevant question with a straightforward answer, none the less.

It's a relevant question but with very different answers depending on where
you are.

In the US, pro-rata cost sharing of direct costs is permitted. But then
there's this extraordinary "common purpose test" which doesn't appear in the
FARs but seems to have been added by the ALJs in some contorted chains of
precedence. That suggests that cost-sharing is only permitted if the pilot
and passengers have a "common purpose" (e.g. as cited in Administrator vs
Rawlins EA-4583). Taken to extremes, this is absurd -- if the pilot's
prupose is to enjoy the piloting and the passengers' purpose is to enjoy the
view, does that make cost sharing illegal?! My guess, not having the
earliest opinions, is that it was originally a test for the credibility of
absence of compensation or hire. ("So you took these guys 1000 miles to
their meeting in an aircraft normally used for air taxi, owned by a FAR 135
operator and you're trying to tell me they didn't pay you for it and you did
it because you like the burgers at that airport? Yeah right.")

It looks like the Canadian regs are different and clearer:

401.28(2) The holder of a private pilot licence may receive reimbursement
for costs incurred in respect of a flight whe
(a) the holder is the owner or operator of the aircraft;
(b) the holder conducts the flight for purposes other than hire or reward;
(c) the holder carries passengers only incidentally to the purposes of the
flight; and
(d) the reimbursement
(i) is provided only by the passengers referred to in paragraph (c), and
(ii) is for the purpose of sharing costs for fuel, oil and fees charged
against the aircraft in respect of the flight, as applicable.

There's still that issue of purpose in (b) and (c). And you must be the
owner or operator, and it's not clear if the hirer of an aircraft is the
"operator" -- I doubt it.

(The conditions for reimbursement by an employer also seem particularly
strict: you have to be a full-time employee.)

FWIW, the regs in the UK are much clearer, allowing pro-rata sharing of
diect costs when:
a) no more than 4 people including the pilot are on board
b) the flight has not been advertised (outside a flying club)
c) the pilot is not employed by the aircraft operator

There's no issue of purpose. But then the 25% share is probably as much as
100% of the cost of a similar N American flight! :-(

Julian Scarfe