What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Sharing expenses-what is legal?

D

dabney

Well Known Member
Friend
I think all Private pilots know and are tested on the privileges of the Private Pilot certificate. Simply put, I was always told that a private pilot is allowed to have passengers pay their pro-rata share of expenses such as fuel.

My cousin just took his PVT pilot checkride yesterday. He was asked by the examiner this hypothetical question: "your friend asks you to fly him someplace so he can attend a meeting. can the pilot accept the friend's offer of paying for his 1/2 of the fuel bill?" My cousin said "Yes". the examiner said WRONG! Since the friend was going someplace on "business" the friend could not pay for anything. The examiner claimed that only if the flight is for "fun" can the PAX pay their share. I never heard of such a distinction. Was the examiner correct?
 
The examiner was correct. It was a business flight. Some examiners even consider flight time as "compensation"


61.113
 
An important factor which was mentioned in the AOPA link above is the purpose of the flight. Basically, if the main reason you're making the flight is to have a paying passenger along, you're treading on thin ice.

If I call my friend up, tell him I'm in the mood for a burger this weekend, and ask if he wants to come along and split the rental cost, that's fine. If my friend calls up and asks if I'll fly him somewhere if he pays half the rental, that's quite different.

My personal approach is to not obligate anyone to pay me if we go for a burger run or something. If they want to chip in, great, if not, well, it's worth the money to me just to get in the air. Better safe than sorry.
 
Charter Flight

Everyone's pretty much nailed it.

This flight would be a charter flight subject to the rules of part 135.

The ol' business gotcha!
 
N546RV said:
My personal approach is to not obligate anyone to pay me if we go for a burger run or something. If they want to chip in, great, if not, well, it's worth the money to me just to get in the air. Better safe than sorry.
Click to expand...

My general rule is that the pilot pays for the flight, and the passenger buys lunch. That way, the passenger gets to contribute, but rarely if ever pays out half the cost of the flight... So very little chance of running afoul of the regs.
 
The word "Meeting" is ambiguous since he did not specify a "business" meeting of sorts. The examiner incorrectly wondered around the point. Possibilities abound here. I can think of hundreds of other meetings that I attend that are not business. If I am going to a lunch meeting with my pals I can fly you there and it not be considered a business proposition. In FAA speak was there a "Profit Motive"? I did not see one in the example given.

AA has "Meetings" does that count?

The examiner was using too much latitude in his questioning.

ASEL/COMM
 
Last edited:
tadsargent said:
The word "Meeting" is ambiguous since ....
Click to expand...

Based on my understanding of the FARs, I think you're missing the point. The key to the FAA's position is not that the passenger is attending a meeting, it's the fact that the passenger asked to be flown there when the pilot had no plans to fly there themselves. IOW, The reason for going to a particular destination is immaterial: it could be for a meeting, a lunch, sporting event, etc. The bottom line is if you as the pilot aren't already flying to that destination, you can't ask for compensation, pro rata or otherwise.
 
Hmmm, how about this scenario (that was a possiblity for me last week):
You are going from central FL to TN and someone (not knowing this) asks if you might be able to fly them to GA to meet some friends. It's not directly on your planned route, but not a huge deviation (at RV speeds). Can they share expenses?
 
Compensation

tadsargent said:
The word "Meeting" is ambiguous since he did not specify a "business" meeting of sorts. The examiner incorrectly wondered around the point. Possibilities abound here. I can think of hundreds of other meetings that I attend that are not business. If I am going to a lunch meeting with my pals I can fly you there and it not be considered a business proposition. In FAA speak was there a "Profit Motive"? I did not see one in the example given.

AA has "Meetings" does that count?

The examiner was using too much latitude in his questioning.

ASEL/COMM
Click to expand...

"Profit motive" is the question here, and even though the examiner's question may have been little clumsy, it was on point. The catch is that the only reason the pilot in the example was taking the flight was to get some half-price flying. Which in FAA speak is "compensation," a no-no for a private pilot or anyone in an experimental aircraft. In fact, as an ATP, I couldn't do it unless I operating on a 135 certificate. The flip side is that if the pilot in question was going to attend the "meeting" and took a co-worker along, it is all legal.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
How bout this? Don't charge them for anything related to the plane. Make them "give" you illegal drugs or anasazi pottery, which you can then sell. Problem solved, FAA happy. Kinder, gentler, here to help us.
 
If flying airplanes is fun for you (like it is for me), then arguing "pleasure" is always a very easy things to do!

"He needed to go to Cleveland for a meeting, but I went there just for the fun of it! We split the cost. Catch ya on the flip side, mister FAA guy!"

CDE
 
The bigger picture

Sadly, there are always people that push this issue way too far. The FAA's concern really isn't about auditing hamburger consumption or fuel receipts. Here is an ugly example of why the rules are in place. Be sure to read Page 1c, under "Additional Information."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09FA112&rpt=fa

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
Sharing Expenses

I had this exact same question come up on my PP Checkride. I was told that you have to have a common purpose in order to share expenses. For example, if I were attending a conference, and a friend happened to be going to a different event, the cost cannot be shared. Also, only consumable costs such as fuel, oil, and rental fees can be shared.

Brent Impecoven
 
Koven said:
For example, if I were attending a conference, and a friend happened to be going to a different event, the cost cannot be shared. Also, only consumable costs such as fuel, oil, and rental fees can be shared.

Brent Impecoven
Click to expand...

OK, so the common purpose is to go to the city in which the two events occur... :)
 
John Clark said:
Sadly, there are always people that push this issue way too far. The FAA's concern really isn't about auditing hamburger consumption or fuel receipts. Here is an ugly example of why the rules are in place. Be sure to read Page 1c, under "Additional Information."

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR09FA112&rpt=fa

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAA FAAST Team Member
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

It would appear in this case that this rule was fairly ineffective. :rolleyes:
 
I dislike cheap ungrateful people, Like when I take friends out on the boat, If we go to lunch Ill ask, (knowing the answer already) So you got this. then I get the weird look, so I say, OK Ill get lunch you pay for the boat gas, It burns 1 gallon every 60 seconds.
 
bret said:
I dislike cheap ungrateful people, Like when I take friends out on the boat, If we go to lunch Ill ask, (knowing the answer already) So you got this. Then I get the weird look, so I say, OK Ill get lunch you pay for the boat gas, It burns 1 gallon every 60 seconds.
Click to expand...

I love it!
 
Resurrecting an old thread

In today's Wall Street Journal (Opinion Section), there is a commentary by Jonathan Riches and Thomas P. Gross entitled "Ride-Sharing For Pilots Is No Flight Of Fancy".

In it, the article discusses a case that could possibly be reviewed by the Supreme Court, Flytenow v. FAA.

Similar to Uber and Airbnb, two companies (Wingly and Off We Fly) are currently operating in the European Union. Private Pilots communicate travel plans and sharing flight expenses over the internet, something that was shutdown here in the US by the FAA in late 2014 after Flytenow was started. The article is making the point that Private Pilots are currently allowed to post notices on airport bulletin boards as well as communicating about cost-sharing via email and phone. The authors argue that a service like Flytenow is merely a technological extension of currently accepted practices.

In reading through this thread (and others), it does seem to be a 'matter of interpretation' when it comes to pro rata sharing of flight expenses. I certainly get that one cannot hire a Private Pilot to take them somewhere unless the pilot was intending to go already (and then it can only be a pro rata sharing of expenses). Gets confusing however when you start digging into the intentions of each person (both going to the same activity?, each going to separate activities but the passenger cannot be going to a business meeting?, etc...). And most importantly, I get that profit cannot be a part of the equation.

It does, however, seem that technology is knocking down walls and barriers where previous impediments existed. Just wondering if this case is in fact heard by the Supreme Court and if so, a ruling goes against the FAA, will pro rata cost sharing become a hot topic amongst private pilots and the FAA? At the very least, it does seem that further clarification would be needed.
 
Last edited:
charger81 said:
In today's Wall Street Journal (Opinion Section), there is a commentary by Jonathan Riches and Thomas P. Gross entitled "Ride-Sharing For Pilots Is No Flight Of Fancy".

In it, the article discusses a case that could possibly be reviewed by the Supreme Court, Flytenow v. FAA.

Similar to Uber and Airbnb, two companies (Wingly and Off We Fly) are currently operating in the European Union. Private Pilots communicate travel plans and sharing flight expenses over the internet, something that was shutdown here in the US by the FAA in late 2014 after Flytenow was started. The article is making the point that Private Pilots are currently allowed to post notices on airport bulletin boards as well as communicating about cost-sharing via email and phone. The authors argue that a service like Flytenow is merely a technological extension of currently accepted practices.

In reading through this thread (and others), it does seem to be a 'matter of interpretation' when it comes to pro rata sharing of flight expenses. I certainly get that one cannot hire a Private Pilot to take them somewhere unless the pilot was intending to go already (and then it can only be a pro rata sharing of expenses). Gets confusing however when you start digging into the intentions of each person (both going to the same activity?, each going to separate activities but the passenger cannot be going to a business meeting?, etc...). And most importantly, I get that profit cannot be a part of the equation.

It does, however, seem that technology is knocking down walls and barriers where previous impediments existed. Just wondering if this case is in fact heard by the Supreme Court and if so, a ruling goes against the FAA, will pro rata cost sharing become a hot topic amongst private pilots and the FAA? At the very least, it does seem that further clarification would be needed.
Click to expand...

Based upon the discussions I've read over on the Red Board, I'd say Flytenow's case is DOA, but I'm not a lawyer so that's just my uninformed opinion.

Also, I'd say posting something on a bulletin board is at best a gray area and certainly not looked upon as an accepted practice by the FAA -- IOW folks that do are potentially opening themselves up to risk.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_or...1/haberkorn - (2011) legal interpretation.pdf

https://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing/2010/media/SepOct2010-ComeFlyWithMe.pdf

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2014/august/20/faa-warns-flight-sharing-services

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 120-12A.pdf
 
Last edited:
Part of the FAA's definition of a commercial operation is if it "holds itself out to the public". Now, aren't your friends part of the public? This seems like a very poorly defined rule to me. Not surprising it ends up in court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top