4 ms·

Unless the pilot is commercially rated, the FAA mandates you have to pay a pro-rated share (50% in your scenario above). There's also the liability the pilot i

by land0 13y ago

Unless the pilot is commercially rated, the FAA mandates you have to pay a pro-rated share (50% in your scenario above). There's also the liability the pilot is taking on by having a passenger along. If there is an incident during the flight the pilot is most certainly going to be sued by you or your estate to recoup medical costs, compensation for negligence (most aircraft accidents come back on the pilot and not the plane), or compensation for death.

steven777400 13y ago
There have even been cases where pro-rata wasn't enough to defend the pilot against claims of commercial operation. The FAA also has a "common purpose" test they can apply, as well as restrictions on "holding out" (advertising yourself to the public). In other words, as a private pilot, if I posted on this forum and said "I'll take you on a scenic flight and you pay half the cost" that would absolutely be a violation and the FAA could act on it, if they chose to. Source: http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html Excerpt: "Understanding the FAA's interpretation of compensation leads to the question of whether a pilot can simply volunteer his airplane and his piloting services to transport passengers to where they want to go, as long as the pilot pays no less than his pro-rata share of the flight expenses. ... FAA legal interpretations have been issued declaring that this arrangement may involve impermissible "compensation or hire." "
- ShabbyDoo 13y ago
  Interesting. I had presumed that the pilot would be violating some FAA rules, as I might be myself. If the pilot had a commercial rating, I presume the more costly maintenance requirements required of commercial carriers would apply here?
  - steven777400 13y ago
    Correct. There are additional aircraft inspections, maintenance requirements, and additional pilot training required to operator as an "air taxi" (part 135) or other commercial operation.
- land0 13y ago
  Thanks for the link. I've been looking (for a while) for a deeper analysis of the regulation.

by land0 13y ago

steven777400 13y ago

There have even been cases where pro-rata wasn't enough to defend the pilot against claims of commercial operation. The FAA also has a "common purpose" test they can apply, as well as restrictions on "holding out" (advertising yourself to the public). In other words, as a private pilot, if I posted on this forum and said "I'll take you on a scenic flight and you pay half the cost" that would absolutely be a violation and the FAA could act on it, if they chose to. Source: http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html Excerpt: "Understanding the FAA's interpretation of compensation leads to the question of whether a pilot can simply volunteer his airplane and his piloting services to transport passengers to where they want to go, as long as the pilot pays no less than his pro-rata share of the flight expenses. ... FAA legal interpretations have been issued declaring that this arrangement may involve impermissible "compensation or hire." "

ShabbyDoo 13y ago
Interesting. I had presumed that the pilot would be violating some FAA rules, as I might be myself. If the pilot had a commercial rating, I presume the more costly maintenance requirements required of commercial carriers would apply here?
- steven777400 13y ago
  Correct. There are additional aircraft inspections, maintenance requirements, and additional pilot training required to operator as an "air taxi" (part 135) or other commercial operation.
land0 13y ago
Thanks for the link. I've been looking (for a while) for a deeper analysis of the regulation.