Compensation

If the pilot had his own DC-3 and made one trip hauled the same people in that one trip and burned the same total amount of fuel(random assumption) he would have been legal?
Makes sense to someone. And justifies a larger plane.:lol:
weilke said:
The pilot playing golf, the passenger attending an antique fair has been found to be a 'common purpose'.
The passengers competing in a canoe tournament and the pilot attending the tournament as spectator would have been a common purpose, yet they dinged him anyway because he flew several trips and they found that only the first trip was covered under the 'common purpose'.
Click to expand...
 
As a RE investor, I always have a built in excuse to the 'common purpose' question. 'I was looking at property in xyz and Mr Smith came along to visit his aunt/brother/GF/play golf.'
 
dwalt said:
Here's a question...in what situation(s) would the FAA actually even pursue an issue like this. Assuming it was a cash transaction b/t pilot and passenger and they both have their stories in line, how would the FAA be able to prove anything anyway?
Click to expand...

1. You bend something and your and your passengers story are different.
2. You really tweaked off some CFI charterpilot hopeful at the FBO and he rats you out after he takes your passengers credit card for the entire fuel purchase.
3. You tick off your passenger who thinks he overpaid for the flight and complains about you to the FAA.
 
ClimbnSink said:
If the pilot had his own DC-3 and made one trip hauled the same people in that one trip and burned the same total amount of fuel(random assumption) he would have been legal?
Click to expand...

Based on that enforcement case, yes. 1/30th of the fuel and oil for a DC3 on the round trip would have been fine as his pro-rata share as long as he had some purpose to go to the Big Island, including attending the canoe race.
 
Unregistered said:
I think it's just too funny when people think that the FAA is going to come after them for not following one reg or one section in the AIM.

PS. I've worked at an FBO and sometimes someone other than the pilot does pay for the fuel. OHMYGOSH CALL THE FDSO!!!!!!!!!!!! Just like when I would see someone clearly put their airplane over gross.... even freight dogs. NO ONE CARES. Really truly I promise unless you do something to draw attention to yourself no one cares as long as you're not running some private pilot charter operation. I hope that one day more people realize the joy the flying and worry slightly less about if the FAR/AIM police are coming.
Click to expand...

All good points here...

I really do think most people are asking more out of curiosity than fear.
 
Friend: "I need to get to Rapid City for a family emergency."
You: "Any good restaurants in Rapid City?"
Friend: "Yeah, great texmex joint I always try to hit."
You: "I love great texmex. Want to go have lunch there?"
Friend: "Let's go!"
 
LDJones said:
Why? It may just be that person's turn to pay for his half of the gas.
Click to expand...

Or the person who owns the plane is paying, and the monkey at the wheel is just a hired gun (BTDT frequently).

Seems rather irrelevant, anyway. All I've ever seen the FBO care about is whether or not the credit card is accepted.
 
Unregistered said:
Some of us have employment situations where we are regularly asked if we have violated any laws, and where we are tested by use of devices which measure our involuntary responses to these questions. And even some more of us are of the disposition to worry about such things, which puts us at a natural disadvantage when taking these kinds of tests. And we work for employers who would take a very dim view of breaking Federal Regulations - regardless of how murky, poorly defined, subject to administrative interpretation, or generally stupid they are.

Just another possible reason people might care. :D
Click to expand...

So you're a federal leo who gets polygraphed every 5 years and you're asking the internet if you're breaking the law.

Nice.
 
I believe that the cost should also be able to be split proportionally by weight. If you weigh 125, and the pax weighs 250, he's holding you down and should thus pay 2/3 of the ticket. How's that any different than taking two other 125 pounders? This whole thing is pretty silly.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You tend to take a very paranoid view of the regs. Not an insult, just a statement.
Click to expand...
My view is based on FAA Chief Counsel interpretations and case law. The Chief Counsel has always viewed and continues to view the common purpose concept in the strictest manner. Read the Bobertz memo I linked to see how that plays out.

One former FAA lawyer once pointed out that there are about 0 cases where the FAA has gone after private pilots for situations like this.
Click to expand...
It's hard to prove that, but the question was whether the FAA would consider it illegal, not whether the person was likely to get caught. I believe that what I wrote reflects the Chief Counsel's position on the issue. Whether the FSDO gets wind of something like this, and whether they choose to hammer someone is another story entirely. As I said, if it is brought to their attention, and the pilot involved has a clean record and good attitude, I think it will result in informal counseling and a closed file. If a pilot comes to their attention for repeatedly doing this, and indicates a belief that it's perfectly OK, I think that pilot will be checking the "yes" box for the rest of his/her flying life.
 
RJM62 said:
Two Questions:

1. If the pilot and passenger each had a need to be at a particular place, but the reasons for those needs to be in that place were different, would that be okay?
Click to expand...
Yes -- asked and answered by the Chief Counsel.

2. How strictly is the second part -- "on the same date" -- interpreted?
Click to expand...
From what I glean, it's "same day, same way." if the pilot changes plans to accommodate the passenger, common purpose is compromised. If the passenger changes plans to fit the pilot's schedule, that should not be a problem.
 
dwalt said:
Here's a question...in what situation(s) would the FAA actually even pursue an issue like this. Assuming it was a cash transaction b/t pilot and passenger and they both have their stories in line, how would the FAA be able to prove anything anyway?
Click to expand...
If you examine the record, the FAA only gets involved in things like this when the pilot holds out publicly or someone complains, and when that happens, the complainant almost always provides the necessary proof. Of course, that doesn't change the answer about what is technically legal or not, just whether one is likely to be burned at the FAA's stake.
 
Ron Levy said:
My view is based on FAA Chief Counsel interpretations and case law. The Chief Counsel has always viewed and continues to view the common purpose concept in the strictest manner. Read the Bobertz memo I linked to see how that plays out.

It's hard to prove that, but the question was whether the FAA would consider it illegal, not whether the person was likely to get caught. I believe that what I wrote reflects the Chief Counsel's position on the issue. Whether the FSDO gets wind of something like this, and whether they choose to hammer someone is another story entirely. As I said, if it is brought to their attention, and the pilot involved has a clean record and good attitude, I think it will result in informal counseling and a closed file. If a pilot comes to their attention for repeatedly doing this, and indicates a belief that it's perfectly OK, I think that pilot will be checking the "yes" box for the rest of his/her flying life.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you realize this (and again, this isn't an insult, just an observation from the over 5 years I've been on this board), but the way you type about such things tends to come across as "OBEY OR YOU WILL BE SENT TO HELL!" in general, which is more my point. I know when I was a student pilot, I found the way you discussed such manners to be overbearing. I don't find it much different now, but as a significantly more experienced pilot, I also know much more than I do then (including knowing you better), so I don't care. :)
 
Bob Noel said:
ding ding ding ding

we have a winner...

quibble: The FAA's interpretation isn't "loose"... it's completely without merit.
Click to expand...

That's a great opinion but the law is that absent decisions beyond the pale so to speak (arbitrary and capricious), when an agency writes a rule they are the final word on what they meant when they wrote it. Not you, not me.

And if it weren't for a bunch of nimrod pilots dreaming up ways to get around the intent of the rule over the years, we wouldn't have so many chief counsel opinions to deal with.

Edit: as pointed out below, "final word" is too strong a phrase to use. But the agency is certainly given deference for their interpretation of what they originally wrote, even rising to a legal presumption, and the "pilots' bill of rights" hasn't changed that.
 
Last edited:
alaskaflyer said:
That's a great opinion but the law is that absent decisions beyond the pale so to speak (arbitrary and capricious), when an agency writes a rule they are the final word on what they meant when they wrote it. Not you, not me.
.
Click to expand...

Actually one of the most significant changes resulting from the pilots bill of rights is that this I'd no longer entirely true. The upstream courts are required to form their own decision about the merits of the rule.
It will take a while to see how they rule on the more silly intetperations.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I'm not sure if you realize this (and again, this isn't an insult, just an observation from the over 5 years I've been on this board), but the way you type about such things tends to come across as "OBEY OR YOU WILL BE SENT TO HELL!" in general, which is more my point.
Click to expand...
Question: Is this legal?
Answer: No.
Response: You're being overbearing/anal/obsessive/whatever.
Answer: If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question? :dunno:

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try to answer, when I know someone will react that way, but then I get those PM's thanking me for providing straight, forthright answers.
 
Ron Levy said:
Question: Is this legal?
Answer: No.
Response: You're being overbearing/anal/obsessive/whatever.
Answer: If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question? :dunno:

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try to answer, when I know someone will react that way, but then I get those PM's thanking me for providing straight, forthright answers.
Click to expand...

If you actually answered them that way, I don't think anyone would say you're bearing overbearing/anal obsessive/whatever.
 
Ron Levy said:
Question: Is this legal?
Answer: No.
Response: You're being overbearing/anal/obsessive/whatever.
Answer: If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question? :dunno:

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try to answer, when I know someone will react that way, but then I get those PM's thanking me for providing straight, forthright answers.
Click to expand...

But keep this in mind: Your answers and "interpretations" are merely your own and have no merit other than your personal opinion.
 
JHW said:
Last summer I had much the same situation and have been living in fear ever since, waiting for the FAA and IRS to find me

I was going to visit my sister in north Texas when one of my daughters asked if I could drop her off at her cousin's (my brother's) in central kansas. There was no common purporse, the kansas stop was an hour out of the way and I had no need to go there that weekend. As we were nearing the end of her leg of the flight, my daughter was having a snack and said said "thanks for bringing me to Cami's, would you like some of my M&M's ?"

It's pretty clear that the M&M's were intended as payment for the trip, and I'm ashamed to say that I took those M&M's and ate them on the spot.
Click to expand...
In addition to taking illicit compensation, you're obviously guilty of destroying the evidence.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If you actually answered them that way, I don't think anyone would say you're bearing overbearing/anal obsessive/whatever.
Click to expand...
Actually, I just hear him state the rules and the most probable interpretation of the same. He did state that there was not likely to be any repercussions from this, just that it was, from a regulatory standpoint, illegal.
 
Spent an afternoon with a childhood friend over Christmas. Some of the talk centered around aviation in western OK in the late 50's. Between then and now it's never been mentioned, probably won't be again. And damn sure never written about.
 
jbarrass said:
Actually one of the most significant changes resulting from the pilots bill of rights is that this I'd no longer entirely true. The upstream courts are required to form their own decision about the merits of the rule.
It will take a while to see how they rule on the more silly intetperations.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I don't entirely agree with your take. The law strikes certain portions of the former law which provided explicit and almost unchallenged deference to FAA regs, interpretations and policies during enforcement actions before the NTSB judges, that's true, but it leaves in place the implicit deference agency regulations and interpretations of those regulations have under the APA. So yes the Administrative Law Judge and appeals courts can now make their own findings, but they won't, absent a strong showing from the defense.

The Bumpers Amendment never passed :dunno:
 
wabower said:
Spent an afternoon with a childhood friend over Christmas. Some of the talk centered around aviation in western OK in the late 50's. Between then and now it's never been mentioned, probably won't be again. And damn sure never written about.
Click to expand...

Probably not a ton different from aviation in the rest of the country in decades following.

Minus the part about bent over stop signs. Or not.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
It's fortunate most folks don't ask these questions until after being a private pilot, and realize that if one simply stays honest and doesn't act unreasonable or draw attention, nobody will care.
Click to expand...

Most reasonable people see the reg as written, and don't have any reason to suspect that there is a need to ask questions about creative interpretations that the FAA may have come up with.
 
docmirror said:
As a RE investor, I always have a built in excuse to the 'common purpose' question. 'I was looking at property in xyz and Mr Smith came along to visit his aunt/brother/GF/play golf.'
Click to expand...

Good idea. You don't even have to be a real estate investor to use it: "I'm thinking about relocating, and I'm looking at possible places to live."
 
They were road signs and that was the legal part.

Ted DuPuis said:
Probably not a ton different from aviation in the rest of the country in decades following.

Minus the part about bent over stop signs. Or not.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
Question: Is this legal?
Answer: No.
Response: You're being overbearing/anal/obsessive/whatever.
Answer: If you didn't want to hear the answer, why did you ask the question? :dunno:

Sometimes I wonder why I bother to try to answer, when I know someone will react that way, but then I get those PM's thanking me for providing straight, forthright answers.
Click to expand...

I'll publicly thank you for posting your answer to the OP's question.
 
In the future, you might consider refusing ALL compensation for taking your friends flying to exotic locales like South Dakota.

You may also interest your friends in your side business: that of selling the world's best tasting gumdrops, which may sell for only (4 hours x wet rental of your plane of choice) to experience.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top