If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Ben Jackson" wrote in message news:Xh_gb.715284$uu5.116972@sccrnsc04... In article , Roger Long om wrote: The FAA is looking for two things when considering the question of whether a private pilot was carrying a passenger(s) legitimately. You kind of left out "...and sharing costs". You can carry whoever, wherever, for free. Nope. Common carriage isn't permitted even if you don't charge. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Both the FSDO and AOPA have told me otherwise. The funeral example actually
came from the explanation someone at AOPA gave me. If you are in a gray area, not cost sharing will certainly help your case. It might also turn an action into a warning. The FAA will base their decision largely on what they think the passenger perceives which will largely depend on what the passenger says. People's natural instinct to appear grateful can get you into trouble even if the flight was legit. Passenger gushes to FAA during ramp check, "Oh, it was so wonderful of him to fly me down here, I know he's so busy and it was out of his way!" You're busted. Make sure your passengers know what to say. -- Roger Long Ben Jackson wrote in message news:Xh_gb.715284$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/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"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) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
as a student pilot who busts you and who questions you how do they find out
ect. "John Harper" wrote in message news:1065653712.292352@sj-nntpcache-5... 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) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|