Private Pilot holding out

[Tired Soul]

Came across a website where a Private Pilot is advertising "shared cost flights".
I doubt that this is legal but can't find any FAR reference to it.
Thoughts?

http://www.cowygr8.com/want-to-fly-with-me/

 

[JAFI]

Did you miss this part in his web site?

If you live near Geneva, Switzerland and would like to experience what it’s like to fly in a small airplane, then this is your opportunity!

And he did talk about shareing the expense.......


Maybe I can talk my boss into sending me to investagate, summer in the alps.... where do I sign.......

 

[MauleSkinner]

sounds like he's operating on a US certificate, though...

 

[JAFI]

From his web site:

"I’m now getting my FAA (US) license validated to fly in the JAA (Europe) system"

It would depend if he is using the privledges of his US certificate or what ever country certificate he is getting and whatever regulations that country has. He did not say he was using a US tail number aircraft.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Assuming FAA rules apply,

==============================
the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot.
==============================

That's from a 1985 FAA Chief Counsel opinion letter talking about how the plans of the "Pilots and Passengers Association" in putting together pilots and passengers for "shared cost" flights ran afoul of both Part 135 and the prohibition on private pilots carry passengers for compensation, and was not covered by the "shared cost" exception.

The principle that shared expense requires shared purpose is stated directly in the regs, but it's a principle the FAA and NTSB have applied for a long time.

Here's the full text:

==============================
December 26, 1985

Thomas H. Chero
Vice President - Legal
AVEMCO Insurance Company
Frederick Municipal Airport
411 Aviation Way
Frederick, MD 21701

Dear Mr. Chero:

Thank you for your letters to this office, dated September 9, 1985, and October 23, 1985, respectively, concerning the actions of the Pilots and Passengers Association (PPA).

You are correct in stating that Section 61.118 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) prohibits private pilots from participating in PPA's operations. Section 61.118 provides that a private pilot cannot act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers for compensation or hire unless the flight falls within one of the four listed exceptions in 61.118(a) - (d).

Section 61.118(b) allows a private pilot to share the operating expenses of a flight with his or her passengers. Additionally, the FAA has interpreted 61.118(b) so that the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide, that is, joint ventures for a common purpose with the expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot. Nor does Section 61.118 permit pilots who want to build up time toward their commercial pilot certificates to carry expense sharing passengers to a destination at which they have no particular business. (emphasis added)

PPA pilots apparently would not share in the expenses of the flights they would undertake. It also appears that PPA pilots could be flying to destinations at which they had no particular business. The PPA system is not a casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances with him on a trip. The PPA system would violate the letter, as well as the spirit, of Section 61.118.

Even if the pilot bears an equal share of the expenses with his or her passengers and indeed has his or her own need to fly to a particular destination, yet another problem arises. Since PPA's passengers would be solicited for flights by PPA from a broad segment of the general public, we conclude that each pilot carrying paying passengers from PPA would probably be engaged in common carriage. This means that each pilot would become an air carrier subject to the certification and operating rules of Part 135 of the FAR.

We appreciate your calling our attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/

John H. Cassady
Assistant Chief Counsel
Regulations and Enforcement Division
==============================

 

[JAFI]

Mark, be careful when using legal interpitations. You need to have the wording of the regulation from the time of the interpitation to decide what exactly was interpited. When the regulation wording changes the interpitation may no longer apply. I asked legal how much need to change before the interpitation was invalid. The answer: “When a significant change occurred to the regulation". In this case your interpitation was from 1985. Has the regulation wording changed since 1985 and was the change "significant"?

This is one of the reasons a bottle of aspirin and antacids are on my desk......

Besides in this case the pilot is in Europe. He needs to determine what the regulations are for that country. As I see it, he is their problem.

I'm still offering to go there for say a month and check this out. I may have to travel widely to assure any questions are answered.....

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mark, be careful when using legal interpitations. You need to have the wording of the regulation from the time of the interpitation to decide what exactly was interpited. When the regulation wording changes the interpitation may no longer apply. I asked legal how much need to change before the interpitation was invalid. The answer: “When a significant change occurred to the regulation". In this case your interpitation was from 1985. Has the regulation wording changed since 1985 and was the change "significant"?

I'm pretty comfortable that there has been no significant change to the regulation (other than the number) and that the FAA still uses the same standard (among the others it uses in this area). The FAA has not grown "softer" on gray charter through the years.

Besides in this case the pilot is in Europe.

Which is why I prefaced my remark with

Assuming FAA rules apply,

 

[Tired Soul]

He is still using a FAA certificate and advertising for shared cost flight.
Seems very dodgy to me.
Regardless if he's flying a N-reg or not he is still excercising the priviliges (and limitations) of his FAA certificate.

 

[midlifeflyer]

He is still using a FAA certificate and advertising for shared cost flight.
Seems very dodgy to me.
Regardless if he's flying a N-reg or not he is still excercising the priviliges (and limitations) of his FAA certificate.

I think you're correct.

FWIW, my quasi-educated guess is:

If the issue is whether he's violating something in Part 61 (requirements, privileges, limitations) of his pilot certificate, the FAA rules will apply.

If the issue is whether he's violating something in Part 91, 119, 121, 135, etc (operating rules for various types of operations), the rules of the country he's in will apply.

Of course, that doesn't mean the foreign country will enforce the FAA rules or that the FAA will find out or bother about what he does overseas.

 

[b82rez]

Mark, be careful when using legal interpitations. You need to have the wording of the regulation from the time of the interpitation to decide what exactly was interpited. When the regulation wording changes the interpitation may no longer apply. I asked legal how much need to change before the interpitation was invalid. The answer: “When a significant change occurred to the regulation". In this case your interpitation was from 1985. Has the regulation wording changed since 1985 and was the change "significant"?

This is one of the reasons a bottle of aspirin and antacids are on my desk......

....you should add a dictionary.