Baronav8er

Ok, so i know this type of question gets asked a lot, but i cant find an answer for my question.

Here is the scenario, please help me understand the rule and how do I do this legally.

I have made a deal to use an airplane from a private party for a set fee (dry). It is a turbo-prop and i can use it for $700 an hour plus fuel. I will be traveling twice a week to and from the same airports. I will fly 400 miles there Monday morning and 400 miles back Monday afternoon, and then again on Fridays. this will be to attend business meetings.

I want to know how to legally find people to ride with me to equally split the expenses (the hourly aircraft rate plus fuel). I will be paying my pro-rated share and I am a commercial pilot.

Please give me some insight. I am not trying to start a charter or receive any compensation including free flight hours. I just am trying to split costs with others that happen to be going to the same destination. In a perfect world i would like to find a regular group of travelers.

Can this be done legally, if not, is there a way to make it work legally?

Gajre539

How do you plan to "find" a regular group of travelers? This falls under the "private carriage" vs "common carriage" discussion.

There are four elements in defining a common carrier; (1) a holding out of a willingness to (2) transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation. Read this - AC 120-12A
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/65b548d01a3dfec3862569ba0068955e/$FILE/ATT9P2M3/AC120-12A.pdf

Baronav8er

can I place a note on a bulletin board, maybe a online forum such as craigslist. i dont know. What can I do legally?

Baronav8er

thank you for that. i just finished reading it. It makes sense, but doesn't it only apply to flying for "compensation"? Since i will be paying my share of the aircraft hourly rate (rental for a lack of better words) and fuel doesn't that exclude my situation from being "for compensation?"

WalkOfShame

Not necessarily... in past court cases, the FAA has deemed the building of flight hours (experience) as compensation. Just because there isn't money changing hands, doesn't mean your not being "compensated" in some way or form. This is a very grey area in the regs (IMO) which makes it fairly easy for the FAA to violate you. It might be best to speak with an aviation lawyer about this scenario before you proceed to do anything.

Twin Wasp

The holding out is what'll get you. You're going twice a week and we'll say it will cost you $1000 each way. If two people show up for a flight and each "contribute" 200 dollars, now it only costs you 600 dollars for the trip you were going to spend $1000 on.

It's one thing to tell some friends "I'm going to fly to the Ohio State football game next weekend, do you you want to come along?" and posting a schedule for anyone to show up just like an airline.

Cubdriver

But if his story is true, he can probably show-

1. His flights are incidental to his business in that he goes only to place B or C and comes straight back to place A afterwards. Or, if elsewhere his various destinations are easily shown to be legitimate work places with documentation for everyone since he may be going to a job site instead of a formal location.
2. The flight times form a pattern supporting a work schedule which is easily verified.
3. The passengers are known coworkers and colleagues and a log of their contributions, flights etc. is kept.
4. The destination is not some resort location unless it can be shown the resort is a work place.
5. Holding out was minimal (technically none) and consisted of word of mouth among colleagues. Craigslist is not a good idea.

If these conditions all exist in essence, I do not see why he can't use the private pilot rule about sharing expenses (14 CFR FAR 61.113(b)(1)) to make these flights. The use of a turbine is little exotic, but there are private pilots who own and operate some smaller passenger turbines such as King Airs and Meridians. But the story needs to check out.

__________________
Turn the heat O-F-F!

NoyGonnaDoIt

No. In the scenario, your passengers are paying. That's compensation. The rules say "compensation" not "profit."

Your problem is that that the private pilot sharing rule is a very limited exception. First, it does not say that the sharing of expenses is not "compensation." Rather, it allows a certain type of compensation. That's true of all of the 61.113 exceptions - they permit compensation in certain circumstances; they don't say those things are not compensation.

Second, sharing expenses requires that the flights be "joint ventures for a common purpose." (1985 FAA Chief Counsel opinion letter). The Chief Counsel more recently appears to have soften the stance by requiring only a common "destination" that is dictated by the pilot. But it continues to caution about advertising. The opinion letter itself discusses Facebook and an FBO's bulletin board.
http://tinyurl.com/42qamof (2011 Haberkorn opinion)

Notice when you read it that, even with the information that the writer gave to the FAA, the Chief Counsel's office was not able to give a straight answer. So, the chances of receiving a reliable answer from SGOTI is pretty close to nil.

Third, watch out for the supposed "common" v. "private" carriage distinction. Although AC 120-12A discusses is as though "private" takes you out of Part 135, there are in fact Part 135 "private carriage" certificates and, so far anyway, I have never seen "private" applied in a way that favors the pilot. See, for example, the discussion in Haberkorn. There are plenty of others.

Lastly, these rules have two purposes. (1) protection of the public by requiring higher standards; and (2) protection of those who have spent the extra time and dollars to meet those higher standards. Given those, I've always thought the real test was "if it quacks like a duck..." The closer that your flights "quack" like a charter, the more likely it will be found to be a charter.

Baronav8er

Thank you all for your insight.

Then my question is, where does the reg apply that I can split the costs of the aircraft rental and fuel with my passengers? what if they pay the person I am "renting" the airplane from directly (meaning they write the check to that person) and not me?

Again, I am not trying to run a charter, i just want to share the cost of the aircraft with people that need to go the same destination.

I found this website last night Aircraft Ride Share - See all available flights . Please take just a moment and click on a few of the flights and see how they people are charging. It looks to me as these people are doing the same exact thing I want to do. Is what they are doing illegal? If not, how would it be different from what I propose?

Thank you all for your time. I really appreciate it.

NoyGonnaDoIt

The "purest" version is the one Twin Wasp mentioned earlier - you and some friends are going to an event together and you're going to fly there and share the expenses.


Different issue than the shared expense one. You're describing a situation in which the issue is "carriage."

Whether public or private, "carriage" can be roughly defined as providing both airplane and pilot. The scenario where the passenger rents the airplane is an attempt to put a rental on equal footing with a corporate aircraft - where the company provides the airplane and the pilot is just an employee. In that situation, "operational control" (an FAA term of art) of the aircraft is not with the pilot; it's with the company. Just simple Part 91 and Part 135 isn't an issue.

In the "passenger-rents" scenario, the theory is that, just like the corporate scenario, the airplane is being provided by the passenger, who is then hiring the pilot.It's not who is paying the bill; (to over-simplify) it's who is responsible for the airplane. With one passenger, it's possible if (a) the owner of the airplane is willing to rent the airplane to the passenger and (b) assuming meeting some base qualifications, it's entirely up to the passenger who they hire to fly the airplane. Unless it's done correctly, it's problematic. I really don't see it applying where there are multiple passengers.

This stuff ain't easy. Once you get out of the clear examples, you're in a pretty large area that I think is intentionally gray.

The legality of rideshare sites? I don't have an opinion. Seems to fit into that "watch out" area discussed in the Chief Counsel opinion.