Ibra wrote:
I am really not sure how much the “FAA Common Purpose” rule is followed or policed in practice in the US?
Very strictly if you are caught. Leaving a paper trail is not a good idea,
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 
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…
FAA clarifies / relaxes the cost sharing rules
Well, only a little bit.
AC 61-142 – Sharing Aircraft Operating Expenses in Accordance with 14 CFR § 61.113 (c) local copy
Not much use for Wingly then…
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?
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!
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.
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.
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?
