Welcome to our forums

Forum → Flying

The FAA Common Purpose cost sharing rule, and does it apply outside the USA?

35 Posts

04-Mar-20 14:07

FAA clarifies / relaxes the cost sharing rules

Well, only a little bit.

In response to a directive from the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, NATA welcomed an advisory circular (AC) released by the Federal Aviation Administration this week clarifying acceptable sharing of flight expenses. As expected, the AC affirms the longstanding precedent and policy from the FAA: holding out to the general public – including through the use of a website or app – without an operator’s certificate is prohibited. The legislation requiring the publication of this guidance was the result of a provision supported by NATA to give pilots better clarity on permissible flight sharing scenarios, and also required a study by the Government Accountability Office for which NATA was extensively interviewed (yet to be released).

“The FAA outlines specific scenarios to demonstrate what is and is not permissible. We expect that pilots will find this useful in understanding the concepts of holding out and common carriage. NATA hopes this enables pilots to make better decisions in this area to avoid enforcement actions that would jeopardize their future ability to fly,” stated NATA President and CEO Timothy Obitts. “This is another great example of the FAA working in concert with the industry to educate owners and pilots, and help put an end to uncertified charter operations.”

In the new AC, the FAA confirmed that using internet-based platforms like social media, websites, or apps to advertise flights constitutes “holding out” and is therefore prohibited. Private pilots, however, are still able to share specific costs of the flight only if the non-flying party pays no less than the pro rata share. In reaffirming that stipulation, however, the FAA reminded pilots that examples of this type of pro rata flight sharing is an extremely narrow exemption carved out for limited circumstances, including a bona fide common purpose.

AC 61-142 – Sharing Aircraft Operating Expenses in Accordance with 14 CFR § 61.113 (c) local copy

Not much use for Wingly then…

Administrator

Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

04-Mar-20 16:10

I am really not sure how much the “FAA Common Purpose” rule is followed or policed in practice in the US?

Judging by US online pilot groups Forums/FB (10% chance the cost-sharing is legal), people do seem more relaxed about a public post like “I bring aircraft & you bring gas, let’s go flying”, where only those interested in that specific flight reply to that request

On UK online pilot groups Forums/FB (90% chance the cost-sharing is legal), each time you see a post, you will read chapters and verses on ANO/EASA cost-sharing rules, max 6 per, pro-rata, wingly, CPL, AOC, illegal charters, Sala…

Last Edited by Ibra at 04 Mar 16:11

Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

04-Mar-20 16:19

We have had this sort of discussion here before. My feeling is that US pilots face the issue a lot less because they are a lot less “on the margin” financially. In Europe, and especially in the UK, a large % of flights would absolutely not be considered unless the flight could be cost shared. Accordingly, before EASA relaxed the cost sharing regs, there was a pile of “seat sharing” websites which advertised flights which would definitely not take place unless the applicant stuck his hands in his pocket and contributed (but this could not be stated openly). In the US they have strict rules on this but the pilots seem a lot more relaxed to start with about collecting contributions. So, while the US rules could be equally circumvented by such a “seat sharing” website scheme, there seems to be little demand for it.

As usual, it all works until there is a crash