Club Management Issue

I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
"commonality of purpose" clause is?

I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine on a
trip related to business so long as the business is not transporting that
person to the destination. Now you are saying that because I want him to
buy something from me I can't do it?

Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? If you are a
politician, you can't take anyone flying because you may one day be seeking
their vote or contribution?

I can't fly anyone from my company with me because I am obviously currying
favor there.

How about a doctor flying a patient for treatment into the big city to see a
specialist?

I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.



"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
You are forgetting that if it can be construed that the pilot may garner
favor from the passenger then the flight is commercial. If I, a securties
analyst, offer a ride to somenone (to see his dying spouse) who works for
a
company in a sector that I follow and I pay all the expenses, it is
prohibited under the regs. Even if I was previously planning to practice
landings at different airports, it is still a prohibited flight if I take
this passenger. The government is requiring me to be a jerk

Mike
MU-2


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
No you cannot because you do not have commonality of purpose. Its
just
one
of those cases where the government requires you to be a jerk.

The government does not require you to be a jerk. It simply requires
that
if you choose to be a Good Samaritan, you don't accept any compensation,
not
even the usual pro-rata share of direct operating expenses.

Pete

"Dude" wrote in message

I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
"commonality of purpose" clause is?

That's the very part I was having a hard time with. We're talking about the
US only, but the NTSB ruled (see my post just off the root of this thread)
in a case involving a pair of TV reporters, an insrument student and his
instructor. The student made arrangements with the TV studio to fly the
reporters to another location unbeknownst to the instructor. The reporters
were not to return with the student/instructor. The NTSB ruled that while
the student may have been in the plane to receive instruction, the
passengers were in the plane purely for transportation to Point B.
Therefore, the student was in violation of Part 135 and 61.118 and the
instructor was also in violation of Part 135.

I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine
on a trip related to business so long as the business is not
transporting that person to the destination. Now you are saying that
because I want him to buy something from me I can't do it?

If he's buying from you, he's a customer and not an employee.

Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? ...
I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.

No doubt. My assertion throughout this thread is that it's patently
ridiculous for the FAA to forbid me to help a fellow pilot retrieve his
plane and have said pilot pay what would amount to 1/4 the cost of the
roundtrip flight. However, based on FAA and NTSB rulings, I cannot accept
any money from him nor can I even take him at all if I'm in a position to
gain "favor or goodwill" from him.

Of course, if we take that last definition to its extreme, I can't even take
friends on local fun flights that I would still be taking without them
because I would be generating "favor and goodwill" with them.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________