General aviation pilots can share the costs of a flight with their passengers, but only under certain conditions, according to a new Advisory Circular from the FAA.
The guidance was put together at the request of Congress, which asked the FAA to clarify its regulations about sharing expenses after flight-sharing websites and apps were developed several years ago in an attempt to create an Uber economy in general aviation.
The FAA immediately quashed those efforts, saying private pilots could not fly passengers for compensation.
“When money or anything of value is exchanged for transportation, the public expects, and the FAA demands, a higher level of safety for the flying public,” the circular reads.
The new advisory notes that there are exceptions to this rule, including the one targeted by the new AC: A private pilot can share the operating expenses of a flight with passengers provided the pilot pays at least his or her share of the expenses of that flight. Operating expenses are limited to fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.
However, pilots must have their own reason for traveling to the destination to be eligible for sharing expenses, according to the advisory.
It gives the example of a friend asking a pilot to fly him to another city to pick up a new car. Because the pilot did not pick the destination, he cannot share the expenses of the flight, according to the FAA.
However, say you were flying to a wedding in Long Island and friends who were going to basketball game in the same area asked to fly along. You could share expenses with them since you chose the destination.
Holding Out
How you find the passengers is critical to whether you can share expenses. Private pilots are not allowed to “hold out” to the public that they are willing to furnish transportation to any person who wants it, according to the Advisory Circular.
What is holding out? It “is accomplished by any means that communicates to the public that a transportation service is indiscriminately available to the members of that segment of the public that it is designed to attract,” FAA officials say in the AC. “There is no specific rule or criteria as to how holding out is achieved. Instead, holding out is determined by assessing the available facts of a specific situation. Advertising in any form raises the question of holding out.”
When considering passengers for flights where you’ll share expenses, a pilot “should be guided by whether he or she is reaching out to a defined and limited group comprised of people with whom he or she has an ongoing, pre-existing relationship (e.g., family, friends, or close acquaintances).”
For instance, it’s OK for a private pilot to post a note on an bulletin board at the FBO about an upcoming flight looking for passengers to share expenses. That’s because the note targets a “limited and defined audience,” according to the FAA.
But that same pilot can’t post that same information on social media, or put an ad in a local newspaper, looking for passengers. That constitutes “holding out” to a broad segment of the population.
That includes any websites or apps that are specifically created to match pilots with passengers.
“Given the expansive reach of the internet, the FAA would consider a posting of a flight on a website accessible to the general public, or a segment of the general public, to be holding out. In this example, the website is designed to attract a broad segment of the public interested in transportation by air. Any prospective passenger searching for flights could access the website, sign up, search for flights, and readily arrange for travel via the website. Therefore, pilots advertising flights on the website would be deemed to be holding out.”
The guidance was welcomed by the National Air Transportation Association, which represents FBOs and charter companies.
“As expected, the AC affirms the longstanding precedent and policy from the FAA: Holding out to the general public — including through the use of a website or app — without an operator’s certificate is prohibited.”
The many scenarios outlined in the advisory should be useful to pilots “in understanding the concepts of holding out and common carriage,” NATA officials noted.
“NATA hopes this enables pilots to make better decisions in this area to avoid enforcement actions that would jeopardize their future ability to fly,” stated NATA President and CEO Timothy Obitts.
You can read the full Advisory Circular here.
What if I wanted to mentor a young student pilot splitting the cost of rental (and instructor??) for a back seat?
Totally agree with Mr. Cary Alburn. Period!
I fly as I damn well please !
Amen Brother!!
The FAA does not want private pilots flying for money. It’s pretty simple. They are being attacked by some for allowing SOME expense sharing under SOME circumstances when flying with friends or family and that is where some want to jump in try to ruin even that part.
The FAA is part of our Government. The only problem they have with private pilots accepting anything is that it most likely won’t be on the books and they can’t tax it. Yes, it really is that simple. They will allow anything if it can be taxed. Why do you think drugs are being legalized?
lawyers have infiltrated our lives to the point where we will all need one to get through our daily lives.!!!!!
I’ve read all of the comments, and I’m pretty sure almost none of the commentators have read the entire AC. I have. As often happens, when the FAA attempts to clarify its interpretations of regulations, it clarifies some and muddles others, and this AC is no exception. While attempting to address and clarify the concept of “holding out”, it has actually changed its interpretation of the long standing concept of “common purpose”. And I’m not so sure that the new interpretation of “common purpose” complies with existing regulations.
My view: it’s well past times for the FAA to carefully revamp the regulations on what constitutes compensation and what items are includable in operational expenses. For instance, the idea that a pilot is compensated when he/she gets to log hours may make some sense for someone building hours for a rating, but it makes no sense for someone who already has all the hours necessary for a rating and only keeps his/her pilot log because he/she is meticulous about complying with the log-keeping regulations. The includable expenses definition is completely warped when a pilot who owns the airplane cannot include actual operational expenses for maintenance (such as annuals, reserve for engine replacement, etc.) but one who rents an airplane is essentially including those same expenses, because they’re included in the rental rates—compare a 172’s fuel and oil costs at about $50/hour but a 172’s typical wet rental rate of $130/hour.
In revamping the regulations rather than publishing an excessively wordy AC, I suggest that the FAA is on the right track to keep the concept that the non-aviation public is entitled to a greater emphasis on safety from those who are engaged in proper commercial aviation. But it’s times to take the FAA’s head out of the sand on what really is commercial aviation.
In my eyes the problem is not the FAA – it’s Uber.
When they tried to transfer their “taxi” system to aviation they crossed a line which would have caused an unforeseeable effect. Government would have had to create new regulations on a massive scale – with new side effects. The least affecting way may have been to advise the FAA to make existing rules ‘watertight‘ – something that always causes a lot of odd rules.
So how does Angel Flight factor in all this?
It is permissible for private pilots according to FAR 61.113(3) – flying for a charity.
In a nutshell, when doing angel flights the pilot absorbs ALL the costs of the trip; fuel, landing fees, aircraft rental etc. The passenger pays nothing therefore he pilot receives no compensation.
Angel flights are done by volunteers who do not get compensated in any way. Not even for fuel.
This is only an issue after you can get on the airport and get to your plane. Our TSA Nazi at IDA is now forcing everyone to go through a 90 minute class to renew a badge to get on the airport. You can get a mortgage with less paperwork and documents. After waiting a week and rearranging my schedule I show up to class at the designated time only to find out that it is not even schedule for that day. Yes other pilots were there too but not the badge czar! They won’t allow us to accommodate their rules so do we just give up or become criminals trying to sneak in to our plane they obviously don’t want us to fly?
They should be told they work for us, not the other way around. They think they are our parents, they have a attitude that they are going to do as they think not what the public wants, all backwards. Should through them all out and start over.
One thing I think is not dealt with here. You can fly your friend to pick up their car, you just can’t share the expenses of the flight. On the other hand, if that friend wants to give you a totally unrelated gift card because they know you like McDonald’s…
Actually the FAA is pretty clear on this They view compensation very broadly, if you receive anything of value that could be directly tied to the flight that’s compensation. So if you had no reason to go but your friend convinced you by offering you to stay the night in his beach house, that’s compensation according to the FAA
So if I post on Facebook “I’m Flying to Oshkosh, Cant Wait”, then a later a friend says, “hey my plane ins still in annul can I fly with you, I can help with the Fisk arrival and I’ll split the gas”. I’m a criminal in the FAA eyes cause I posted on Face book.
No Darrin. It’s only if you post on FB with an offer to take anyone who wants. You need to engage in the act of “holding out” to the general public. Telling people you’re doing something isn’t the same as soliciting passengers
Hmm… if the pilot didn’t pick the destination he wouldn’t have flown there, now would he. PIC makes the flight plan and flies it. In my mind that’s picking the destination. His friend might have suggested it but he’s not the one who was PIC and made the final go/no-go decision to that destination.
Don’t you wish the National Highway Safety Institute had as much power as the FAA?
You wouldn’t be able to take your friend to the 7-11 unless you also HAD to go to the 7-11.
“an edict from above states inspectors are not allowed to fraternize with non-FAA types anymore”
From the First Amendment to the Constitution as explained by Wikipedia:
“Freedom of peaceful assembly, sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and defend their collective or shared ideas.”
In “modern” phraseology, this simply means you can hang out with whoever you damn well please to.
If the FAA’s statement was quoted correctly, they are in direct violation of the First Amendment. Of course, if any of their employees makes any kind of fuss about this, they’ll promptly get fired. Evidently the FAA feels it is not subject to the law of the land, but that seems to be a very common and in fact pervasive attitude throughout government these days, so where’s the problem?
Leona Helmsley got it almost right when she famously said “Taxes are for little people”. What she should have said is “Laws are for little people”.
It appears most of these comments were not made by actual pilots that have an understanding of the required skills and decision making ability necessary to fly when conditions are not optimal. You can’t just pull over when something goes wrong like you can in a car or boat. NTSB reports are full of mishaps and fatalities because of poor planning and decision making. The FAA takes a more conservative approach when one is engaged in common carriage.
Flying your buddy to pick up a new car is NOT common carriage.
Common Carriage: A carrier becomes a common carrier when it “holds itself out” to the public, or to a segment of the public. Holding Out: A carrier is holding out when they represent themselves as willing to furnish transportation within the limits of its facilities to any person who wants it.
In the example the pilot is receiving log book hours and it is helping to keep him current (aka safe). Many pilots are happy to just go flying and are often looking for a place or excuse to do it it would follow that it’s irrelevant as to who picks the destination. More interesting would be how to break down the costs with two people going but a solo return flight.
Just more bureaucratic BS!
Bob and Jim are both work for the government and receive travel reimbursement at the GSA Rates. If Bob flies to Atlanta on business, his employer can reimburse him $1.27 per STATUTE Mile. But if Bob takes Jim can Bob receive the whole $1.27/SM from his employer? Or do both Bob and Jim submit claims to their employer for 63.5¢ each, and then Jim has to give Bob what he received from employer?
What if Jim takes his wife along?
The Federãles Against Aviation have taken the concept that the pilot should not receive compensation to absurd extremes.
As one who has done this and received compensation for my airplane at the GSA rate, only one can claim it. So, any passengers going on the same trip cannot claim any travel expenses relating to the flight. They paid nothing to travel so there is no expense to claim.
Rule one: Keep quiet. FAA asks anything, say, “huh? I don’t know what you are asking about.” If you are on “Social Media” it is usually you are communicating with friends, not the general public. If a friend wants a ride to go get a car and he says he’ll pay for gas, what difference does it make whether you used your plane, your car, you boat, your motorcycle, your hovercraft, your motorized skateboard. The rule was created with the intent to keep some guy with a private pilot from becoming an air taxi cab. FAA folks saw a way to criminalize social activity.
Schumer must have been involved!
Or mini mike. I love the statement! You can’t have a soda more then ten ounces,(mini) Chris
You’ll always find some twit who will bend the rules to his benefit which is why we have them. Hence the rules.
The problems aren’t the Rules. The problem is the extreme interpretations of them that comes from the FAA General Counsels office without any public rulemaking.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed….the rule makers bend the rules every day.
I don’t think military aircraft flying Nancy home every weekend are charter airlines, are they?
Congress is supposed to make laws not government agencies. Lifetime bureaucrats have become our de facto lawmakers. This issue is recognized by Trump, let’s hope it gets fixed.
Totally disagree. Your logic is flawed and not rooted in reality.
Totally agree… Your logic must be backed by the DNC.
A basic principle of law is that it should be reasonably clear what is, and what is not allowed.
It seems to me that the AC reduces clarity in what was intended to be a clear requirement – that the two must have a common purpose – and muddies it by trying to limit the common purpose in ways not intended by the original regulation. Specifically, it focuses on whether the parties sharing the costs have a common purpose in arriving at a particular destination.
Let’s take this this one:
Example 1: A friend asks a pilot to fly him to another city to pick up a new car he ordered and offers to share the expenses of the flight. The private pilot agrees, as he is not doing anything else and would enjoy the flight. As the passenger chose the destination and the private pilot does not have a purpose of his own to be in the other city at that time, this is an example of a situation where no common purpose exists. Therefore, expense sharing would not be allowed under § 61.113(c).
I was struck by the confluence of four things in the FAA’s explanation, here: one, that the two are friends; two, they would be flying together, something that friends could be expected to enjoy; three, the pilot would enjoy the flight, consistent with them being friends; and four, there is no common purpose.
But wait: friends flying together IS a common purpose, surely? Isn’t that a common reason for sharing expenses – friends wanting to enjoy flying together? Or, even though they have a common purpose, does the friend’s selection of the destination invalidate their common purpose? Do all their purposes have to be common? Does their primary purpose have to be common?
Let’s think through a hypothetical: two friends go flying for fun, together, because they would enjoy it. Their shared purpose is enjoying flying together, and cost sharing is allowed, I think.
– During the flight, they fly over the passenger’s house, so the passenger can photograph his house; and they also fly over the pilot’s house, so the pilot can photograph her own house. Now, they have both a shared purpose – enjoying the flight – but also non-shared purposes. Is cost sharing allowed? We usually think so, but that’s not clear – the AC is muddying the waters.
– Suppose there is an airport along the way and the pilot says “I left my laptop there, last week – do you mind if we land there so I can pick it up?” If the passenger agrees, now we have a flight in which a) there is a shared purpose b) there is a destination only one of them wants to go to. Does the airport stop, to pick up the laptop, mean that costs for the first leg of the flight cannot be shared? That seems implausible, given that they have a shared purpose – enjoying of flying together – for that leg, too. And yet, in the AC, the FAA seems very focused on having a shared purpose in going to the specific destination of the flight.
So let’s take a new hypothetical start: the shared purpose requires having a common purpose in going to a particular destination, and no other shared purpose may be considered. In this case, the costs of the first leg cannot be shared, but the costs of the flight home can, because they have a shared purpose in returning home. But now, if they don’t stop at the other airport, it appears the FAA could argue they cannot share the costs of the flight at all, because they are already at the destination before they take off so that they have already accomplished their common purpose, and do not need to accomplish it again. That’s clearly at odds with the intent of the regulation, which has always been intended to cover local area flights.
Since the second hypothetical is not the intent of the regulation, the common purpose cannot be limited to having a common reason for going to a particular destination – there could be a common purpose in the flight itself, with the destination as a purpose of only one of them. But, if that’s the case, then Example 1 is misleading. Enjoyment of the flight, and/or enjoyment of the flight together, as friends – but not the destination – might be the common purpose.
It needs to be simple. If there’s a (material) common purpose, good to go. If not, not.
From now on I want to take a picture of my plane at every airport in the US. If a friend wants to go to some airport, we could legally share, since we both have a desire to go there!
This does not enhance safety in any way, but it does complicate a lot of nothing unnecessarily. All this guff does not improve flying in any way or form ! It does however piss everyone involved to no end. If I fly to another state and my friend wants to go to take care of business he is very welcome to come along. No one will know, I guarantee that. We have way to much crap to put up with as it is that absolutely has nothing to do with safety or anything else. It does however obscure everything else and dirty’s up the duty’s of the PIC. Bottom line !!!
You have hit the nail squarely on the head. The FAA is of little use when they reason like this, as are most government agencies with lawyers involved.
So, why is Uber and Lyft acceptable in cars? So cars are OK, airplanes and helicopters are not OK. What about boats? trains? bicycles? motor cycles? bus? horse pulled wagon?
I get what they want, I am just not sure the logic is very consistent.
“It gives the example of a friend asking a pilot to fly him to another city to pick up a new car. Because the pilot did not pick the destination, he cannot share the expenses of the flight, according to the FAA.”
A perfect example of a heavy handed government bureaucracy . This is NOT holding out or an undue risk to uninformed public. Why do we allow the government to trample on us?
John, The Federal Gestapo known as the FAA can trample on our rights only because we are so small in numbers that we have no clout. I have a friend who is with the FAA. When I would go to a maintenance seminar and he was there, sometimes after hours we’d go get a beer. This last one I went to he told me an edict from above states inspectors are not allowed to fratenize with non-FAA types anymore. These unelected bureaucrats are our dictators whether you want to believe it or not.
I agree. Too few. And we don’t fight back with one voice.
This is a probably a result of all the trouble the FAA has gotten themselves into because of such relationships with Boeing, Southwest and others.
Excellent distillation of the AC guidance! Thanks for spreading the word.