There won’t be many beneficiaries since only a few N-reg owners will be flying on their domestic papers. That mode is usable only if you never go to another country (EASA etc doesn’t count).
The least one will have is a 61.75 and then you are subject to Part 61.
Very interesting! Surprisingly this has never come up in any discussions I had in the last couple of years. I did my CPL before that circular and the common purpose rule was very much a thing at the time. Thanks for digging it up, learned something. Every day is a school day….
Peter wrote:
What does that mean? An N-reg flown under $61.3 (a) (1) is exempt from the common purpose rule?
I believe that the regulation applies to part 61, that is the pilot, not to the aircraft. If one is using a part 61 pilot certificate and exercising private pilot privileges, then all of the part 61 regulations apply. I don’t think that a pilot using their own country pilot certificate would be bound by the cost sharing regulations imposed by part 61, just because they were flying in their N registered aircraft. Outside their country, they would need to use their part 61.75 private pilot certificate (or other part 61 certificate) to act as PIC of an N registry aircraft, and the regulation would apply. I attached the latest version of the AC regarding cost sharing in my other post.
172driver wrote:
and now the kicker: everyone on board must have a common purpose for the flight. Which means: 4 friends are going to a football game in a different town: cost sharing allowed. Same flight, but two go to a concert and the other two to the football game: cost sharing verboten.
I too recall this being the case, but apparently not anymore; quoting from the editorial revision of AC 61-142 section 9 Common Purpose, the interpretation has changed:
9.3.1:
Example 3: John, a private pilot, plans to fly from Charlotte, NC to Boston, MA to accumulate flight time. Pete, his friend, asks if he can hitch a ride to Boston and share the expenses of the flight with him so that he can visit his great-grandmother for the weekend. A common purpose exists for this flight because John was already flying to Boston and would be making the trip regardless of whether Pete shared the flight.
It appears to me that the main requirement has shifted to PIC coming up with the idea for the flight AND destination, but not necessarily activities at the destination. So it would be OK for me to take someone to a EuroGA fly-in and have them go hiking while I eat grilled veggies with Peter and they could pay me a pro-rata share of the expenses (fuel, rental). Discuss?
BTW, how does one determine a “revision” of an AC? 61-142 has obviously been revised, but there is no mention of it being revised in the header, just markers on the left.
For the record, a local copy of the now-current version of AC 61-142: AC_61_142_Ed_Upd_pdf
That is interesting. However, Wingly is still likely illegal in an N-reg due to the “holding out” rule. Basically you are offering a flight, for a payment, to any unrelated person.
This stuff really highlights the contrast between the generally impoverished European GA scene where many people do not fly at all unless they can cost-share, and the US GA scene where few people bother to recover costs by taking people up.
Peter wrote:
the CP rule may not apply anyway outside the US
The common purpose test is applied to US private pilot privileges which can have extra-territorial effect. Use of a local licence, outside the US, is likely to overcome this limitation.
Yesterday I received an FAA Advisory Circulars Update Notification which mentioned an update (apparently) to AC 61-142, Sharing Aircraft Operating Expenses in Accordance with 14 CFR § 61.113 (c).
What does that mean? An N-reg flown under $61.3 (a) (1) is exempt from the common purpose rule?
But the CP rule may not apply anyway outside the US – see above thread (too late at night for me to read it).
172driver wrote:
and now the kicker: everyone on board must have a common purpose for the flight.
That condition applies only when exercising the privileges of a US private pilot certificate.
I think this is a detail. I have never known anybody with an N-reg doing wingly. And I have known just one owner doing wingly, G-reg, plane since crashed though, reportedly on a wingly job. And in France (the current context) there aren’t that many N-regs.
tmo wrote:
How about a N registered aircraft with a FAA CPL, but under Part91?
The CPL alone doesn’t help you here, you also need a Letter of Authorization for the airplane from the FAA.
Other than that, the FAA rules are pretty clear:
- advertising (‘holding out’ in FAA legalese) is verboten
- the pilot must pay his/her equal share of the flight (half, third, whatever)
- and now the kicker: everyone on board must have a common purpose for the flight. Which means: 4 friends are going to a football game in a different town: cost sharing allowed. Same flight, but two go to a concert and the other two to the football game: cost sharing verboten.
