You wrote:
That sure appears to say there was some sort of provision for Alaska. I gather now you did not intend to say that anything at all was different about the provisions for expense sharing in Alaska, and that common purpose is interpreted the same there as in the other 49 states.
True as far as it goes, but there is nothing in 61.133 allowing you to receive compensation from passengers in return for providing air transportation as opposed to providing pilot services or acting as PIC for hire/compensation. That exception appears only in 61.113, and since Private Privileges included in your CP ticket, those limitations apply in this case.
Nothing in 61.133 authorizes a CP to provide air transportation for hire. That falls under Part 119, from which the Part 135 certificate requirement derives when we're talking about air transportation for hire/compensation as opposed to providing pilot services for hire/compensation or acting as PIC when passengers are paying (regardless of who is receiving the money).
As stated in Part 119 (which is another applicable part of Chapter 14), Part 135 most definitely applies in the sort of flight contemplated unless all the requirements for the 61.113(c) exception are met.
I think the Chief Counsel would say it doesn't fit within 61.113(c), but if you really want to know, feel free to write to them and ask.
You think you have common purpose. I'm not sure the Chief Counsel would agree. Wanna bet your ticket on the outcome?
You think you have common purpose. I'm not sure the Chief Counsel would agree. Wanna bet your ticket on the outcome?
You think you have common purpose. I'm not sure the Chief Counsel would agree. Wanna bet your ticket on the outcome?
Exactly. Henning made a concise and simple observation on the application of shared expense for a common purpose to a real situation in a practical no-nonsense way. Not one of thoise, "how about if my group is only made up of blond transvestites who
No, the problem is getting the Chief Counsel to agree that it fits the FAA's common purpose definition, and I think that won't happen.
I have no opinion about your scenario, But the highlighted statement is simply incorrect.
Not so. According to the US Court of Appeals, the Chief Counsel need not advance a new interpretation in advance of an enforcement action alleging a violation. Since forgiveness isn't part of the FAA's policy in this sort of thing, I suggest not pushing the envelope without asking first, because once a violation goes on your record, by order of Congress, it stays there forever.
in Administrator v. Henson (1994), where a commercial pilot did not properly set up a shared expense flight and operated an illegal charter, implying that it would have been permissible for a commercial pilot to qualify under the 61.113(c) exception.
See the Reich letter: "There is no common purpose when a pilot is flying to a destination where he or she has no particular business to conduct." IOW, just generally wanting to go fly or go sightseeing from the air doesn't meet the standard -- the pilot must be going to that particular place to do something specific there. However, there's nothing that says the pilot's reason for going to that destination can't involve compensation for something other than piloting services or the provision of air transportation, e.g., the pilot is going to be paid for his/her nonaviation services while on the ground there. In addition, per several other interpretation letters, the pilot must have a reason to going there on that date - no adjustment of travel dates to accommodate the passengers.
I don't see that. "Personal business" is sufficient and you don't have to be getting paid to be there in order to meet this standard. For example, they have previously said that if you have tickets to a ball game or an invitation to a wedding, that will do. See Haberkorn, page 3, paragraph 2. But sightseeing from the air as a "purpose" independent of the flight itself? I don't see them buying that as "personal business to conduct".
It might be. And as far as legality is concerned I don't think there's any difference between asking someone to pay their pro rata share and accepting it when someone offers.
How would hours you pay for be compensation?
What did you expect, or have cause to expect in return for that ride? That is where the question lies.
Since you paid all the costs, there is no violation. You haven't been compensated by anyone except yourself, and that's OK. The problem arises is when you receive compensation from someone else for providing air transportation to someone else. Since I'm not paying for the ride, it's perfectly OK for you to do me a favor by running me up to Lancaster to pick up my plane at Lancaster Avionics.
The pilot in the Bobertz memo was collecting money from all passengers. That's the problem. He could certainly have given them all free rides legally, but once he started taking money, the line was crossed.
Dias makes clear that it's only a problem "if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft". Since in your scenario, you're paying all the costs and logging all the time, there's no problem.
Your impression is correct. In the words of Dr. Lector, "Quid pro quo, Clarisse, quid pro quo," and it's OK to get something of value for yourself if you pay for it yourself.
They ain't gonna do that, and they said so in the Dias letter.
Yes -- as a Commercial Pilot, you're legal to be compensated for flying CCI's plane on CCI's business, including carrying company employees or guests wherever the company says it's OK to take them. That's what tens of thousands of corporate pilots do every day. Just make sure you have a medical valid as Second Class or better to legally exercise those CP privileges. Just no charging the passengers for the ride -- CCI would need a 135 certificate to do that.
Not at all. They have made clear that if you pay for the flight, you're legal. The only exception to that is when you have a business relationship with the other party involved and there is the potential for future consideration in return for the ride -- that's where this pilot fell afoul of the rules even though he paid for the flight himself. OTOH, when the FAA went after this pilot, the lack of any business relationship with the other parties and the fact that he paid for the flight himself got him off the hook.
The "holding out rule" applies to holding out to the public an offer of air transportation for hire/compensation. So, you can "hold out" to anyone you like an offer of a free ride without violating any rules.
Sure. Charity with no strings attached is legal -- just expensive. Just make sure that when you decide if you like them, it's not because you're getting something in return from them.