Peter wrote:
Insurance
Fair point, but when push comes to shove I believe an underwriter would have to show that any alleged illegality affected his risk.
when push comes to shove I believe an underwriter would have to show that any alleged illegality affected his risk.
That’s not how it works, sadly. If it worked that way, you could fly without a license, medical, CofA, and be insured.
Jacko wrote:
I think that is an incorrectly pessimistic opinion
On the contrary, it could be an optimistic opinion, and a clear cut one. Regarding commercial passenger operations, legal rights for passengers, the aircraft could be from land A, the pilot from land B, the flight done in land C, and the legality of it all could have to follow that of land D. Since this is a kind of quasi commercial private operation, anyone could sue you for braking some law in case of an accident. Paying “customers” coming to you by looking at your advertisements is a minefield no matter how you look at it.
All those lacunae might reasonably affect the insurer’s risk. Depending on circumstances, it might be harder to argue that a sky uber pax did so merely because of the aircraft call sign. That aspect of SU probably needs Counsel’s opinion – if anyone can be bothered.
Peter wrote:
one goes skiing and the other goes to a football match
The FAA rule is intended to prevent private non commercial pilots from flying for fee or profit. Any combination of passengers who are flying with you for fun, to visit someone, or even run an errand and are just splitting fuel costs is allowed. Doesn’t matter what you are doing on the other end….Also, you are allowed to fly as part of commuting for your work.
Insurance companies in the US are less interested in who you have along and why you are going than in the flight is properly conducted under the rules.
Doesn’t matter what you are doing on the other end
Do you have the FAA Chief Counsel ruling for that, USFlyer?
I recall seeing several over the years. You may be right that the last one says something like that, but then why have the words “common purpose” at all?
Peter wrote:
“common purpose”
The common purpose is that you are going to the same place and likely will return together…no one says one has to go to a Dennys the other goes to a McDonalds to get their $100 hamburger. Or that one visits friends and the other goes skiing. Or that you are bringing a friend and they are bringing a friend of theirs you don’t know. The FAA just wants to make sure you are not providing a flight to strangers for the SOLE and PRIMARY purpose of their transportation needs.
Like all the regs, these things are interpretative and inexact…so I think the underlying purpose or intent needs to be relied on rather than the legalese they are written in… The FAA has stated that they intend to prevent private pilot flying from engaging in ‘commercial’ enterprise….namely flying for profit, not for fun.
In an odd way, the FAA allowing a private pilot to commute for work is dancing too close to their own fire…but they allow that too.
And another odd part of the rule is that a PPL is allowed to demonstrate aircraft for sale (sales broker). And indirectly earn a fee.
The rule applies to pilots holding a US issued private pilot certificate and exercising the PIC privilege while carrying passengers. Enforcement is a totally different issue. If it came to the attention of the FAA, they could revoke the pilot’s certificate, regardless of where the infraction occurred.
Thanks for the clarification, NCYankee.
Actually this same up here before – here and what I thought was the latest FAA CC clarification is posted there i.e. the “common purpose” appears to be little more than everybody going to the same airport.
Also that thread refers to ride sharing websites in the USA!
Peter wrote:
Insurance is the main issue in this. If the flight was not legal then they won’t pay out (unless they don’t find out).
Agreed Insurance is really what rules the day. So if the FAR is fuzzy but the insurance decides not to pay you lose. What I have done is have it in the policy that cost sharing is allowed. Since I dont have anyone pay the full cost let alone more in order to make a profit I was always comfortable with the FAR and the way my insurance was written.
Whenever I flew friends of mine, friends, I would always be included in the activity so it never was a problem besides I like to do new things. You can exclude funerals from that list.
Besides would you count getting comped lunches and dinners as part of the perks package in fee for hire?
