Cost Sharing Your Aircraft | FAA and AOPA Discuss Protecting Your Pilot Certificate

The first segment in this video series, Protecting Your Certificate — Keeping it Safe and Legal, is presented by the Federal Aviation Administration and AOPA's @AirSafetyInstitute. This series covers important information that pilots and aircraft owners need to know and understand when it comes to flying passengers and property, safely, and legally.

00:00 – Into
02:48 – Question About a Ride
04:17 – Advisory Circular 61-142
05:32 – Cost Sharing Exceptions
07:11 – Pilot Privileges vs. Operational Rules
08:14 – Question About Flying to Hospital
10:49 – Common Purpose
11:32 – Question About Destination and Dinner

[leetrotter]

I have been involved with "Angel Flight" for many years. We are a nation wide group of pilots who volunteer our time, aircraft, fuel etc. to transport medical patients for various needs. No Financial compensation is received. We do receive a tremendous amount of goodwill from the smiles and thanks from these patients. The pilot does not select the destination or passenger, has no personal need for the destination and has no specific purpose other than to fly the patient in need. We fly the patient to the required airport drop them off and immediately return home. The only input the pilot has is to select a particular flight from a list of requests. It would seem this panels interpretation that those volunteered medical flights are illegal. I hope I misunderstood.

[richeelfrazier]

As a mom of a pilot all they did was talk in circles! Since I paid for the flight training and I tell my kid he has to take me on a flight so I can see what my money is paying for, does that create common purpose? Common purpose being kid wants continued funding and I want to decide if I continue to pay.

[rickturl]

Thank you for a thought-provoking video. I have two questions: 1) If a friend wants to fly to a destination and I decide after they suggest it that I would enjoy making the trip there for another reason, can we legally share expenses.? I once dropped a friend off on a backpacking trip while I remained behind and camped in the area. 2) If a friend requests that I fly them somewhere and there is no compensation involved (no shared expenses, no meals, I do not need flight hours, …) do I still run afoul of the rules?

[denverbraughler]

As a matter of what’s morally right, I see why a pilot would fly someone to a distant hospital.

Every private flight with passengers creates good will toward the pilot and increases the pilot’s experience.
Therefore, all private flights with a passenger are compensated.

[grantvanbavel]

I must say that after watching this and another episode, I am questioning why I am paying for Pilot Protection services. The AOPA lawyer essentially said “me too” to everything that the FAA said. These ridiculous interpretations concerning compensation are why AOPA members need advocacy and not acquiescence. I get that the lawyer is trying to be cautious, but there was nothing stopping him from addressing the draconian and inconsistent position of the FAA. Why are they not shutting down Angel Flights and Samaritan’s Purse if “goodwill” and “time building” are compensation? I guess it’s OK as long as you are grumpy and don’t log the time.

[cliveparker]

Too bad this compensation by goodwill was not directly addressed. It does seem to cover every situation. But for the case of logging hours being regarded as compensation, can the pilot make the flight and not log the hours, or does that violate some other rule

[darthheretic]

I missed the background on the brother at the end of the line, other than he was FAA.

[freepilot]

All these examples are about having a destination... What about plane rides? Just a few circles around the town or around the pattern.

[mtaqb]

If the Pilot is planning on taking a flight to log Hours, the pilot doesn't really know where they want to fly to but are planning on making a flight Tuesday. On Sunday night a friend says I need to go to xyz on Tuesday can the pilot fly them to that destination?

[josh]

What about this. What if a pilots purpose for flying to a place is logging the flight time and a friend is like oh you're going there? I've always wanted to go to xyz and see a museum the pilot isn't' interested in. So they fly there together, no money is exchanged for anything the pilot pays all flight costs. The pilot does some shopping gets the plane refueled and ready while the friend is at the museum and they meet back at the airport and fly home. Is the flight time "compensation" or is it now part of the common purpose for the trip? If its' the latter how does one prove there were flying there anyway if the only reason was the flight time? Further if good will is compensation, seems to me basically no flight with passengers is possible unless the pilot was already going there and can really 1000% prove that was the case. Some how. Which I'm sure is not what the regs intended. The were meant to stop a pilot from having paying customers the pilot doesn't even know without a safe operation, not to make almost any flight with passengers, even friends and family, basically impossible without legal risk to the pilot's certificate.

[EdAvr-dcgk]

Ref the inability of a private pilot being able to fly someone to see a seriously ill family member, begs the question of how can we be doing Angel Flights? The discussion by your panel on this scenario seems to have taken an extreme bureaucratic turn…
There will almost never be “individual reasons” for flying to a common destination…. FAA here, is making it illegal to ever fly with someone…

[JonathanWilder-cglx]

This is an absolutely ridiculous misinterpretation of 61.113(c). As was mentioned in a previous comment, no where in 61.113 does it even mention the requirement for a "common purpose". As a matter of fact, 61.113(c) just simply states that "A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees." No mention of a "common purpose" requirement.

The ONLY place I see that requirement published is in AC 61.142. Also, in AC 61.142, I see published the following -


"The material in this AC is advisory in nature and does not constitute a regulation. This guidance is not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied upon by the Department of Transportation as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement action or other administrative penalty. Conformity with this guidance document (as distinct from existing statutes and regulations) is voluntary only, and nonconformity will not affect rights and obligations under existing statutes and regulations. The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way."

Yet you give it the force of law and use it in legal defenses regarding "flying for compensation".

This rule twisting practice of the FAA needs to stop, along with the corruptness of the HIMS program.

[joebelden]

Where is the common purpose test coming from? I don't see that in the regulation.

[merlepatterson]

What if the pilot is an artist and has personal artwork in his plane and the passenger likes it and then buys the artwork from the pilot, but it just so happened that the passenger only saw the artwork once they boarded? The purchase of the artwork is unrelated to the flight and the money exchanged is simply a personal deal unrelated to the flight.

[freepilot]

4:01 why is flying so different than driving apropos passengers. I can drive my friend that asked me for a ride to the store or to the next town but I can't fly him. Isn't flying under the laws of department of motor vehicles?

[mattalford]

The FAA's interpretation of commercial use and comparison are unconstitutional and / or aren't the best interpretation of the statute. The FAA allows posting videos on monetized YouTube channels for literally every type of aircraft operating in the national airspace system without a commercial license except for UAS. We lose constitutional rights when we fly drones. So add equal protection clause in there too. The FAA probably wont be able to hide behind Chevron deference doctrine for much longer though.