A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ownership and passengers



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 8th 03, 07:16 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 8th 03, 09:13 PM
Peter Gottlieb
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 03, 09:17 PM
Ben Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 03, 10:01 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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  
Old October 8th 03, 10:21 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 03, 10:53 PM
David Megginson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 8th 03, 11:04 PM
Roger Long
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 8th 03, 11:12 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old October 8th 03, 11:56 PM
John Harper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 01:54 AM
MRQB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.