[gcb0]

to take that commercial license you have to fly hundreds of hours. with and without instructors.

guess how much those hours cost.

i lost count of how many times I've flown just for the hell of it with friends getting those hours for a few hundred bucks.

[lifeisstillgood]

I think the point is ... With friends. Who almost always return to the same airfield as you both took off from.

But this is a fascinatingly grey area. If you were to fly from airfield A to B and back, taking a different passenger each time, how would you characterise the transaction?

I can see taking my kids up in an airplane of a friend of a friend, and handing over a hundred or whatever for fuel. But "some guy". Hard to imagine.

[patch_cable]

For a private pilot, unless the passengers share a common purpose for travel with the pilot, money isn't allowed to change hands, even if it is just "for fuel".

You would need at least a commercial pilot license for this type of transaction. (A CPL is a lesser license than an airline transport pilot license, which is what you need to work for an airline. The former only requires 100 hours of time.)

[peckrob]

It's even more complicated and crazy than that.

* If I fly my friends with me to the beach for the weekend, they can chip in and cover their share of expenses. Legal for me to do as a PPL under FAR 61.113(c).

* If I fly myself to a conference for work, my employer can reimburse me for my expenses. Legal for me to do as a PPL under FAR 61.113(b)(1).

BUT.

* If I take a coworker with me to the conference, I can't be reimbursed as a PPL. I must either fund it out of my own pocket or must have a CPL under FAR 61.113(b)(2) as held by the Mangiamele opinion (which I can't find the original PDF of right now, unfortunately).

> You would need at least a commercial pilot license for this type of transaction.

And a class 2 medical certificate, which may be difficult to get.

[lifeisstillgood]

Common purpose of travel seems a good phrase - but surely your Collegue and you have common purpose - or is that common, non commercial, purpose?

[peckrob]

> common, non commercial, purpose?

This is, IIRC, what the Mangiamele opinion held. If our common purpose is business, even if it's non-aviation business, the second person is considered a paid passenger when the pilot is reimbursed.

I get what the FAA is trying to do - they're trying to keep PPLs from running charters, air taxis, under-the-radar airlines, etc. But some of the 61.113 rules and opinions are just silly, and that section really needs a complete rewrite.

I don't need a CDL to drive my coworker with me to the conference, even if I am reimbursed by my employer. I shouldn't need a CPL to make that same trip in an airplane.

[patch_cable]

Here is the document of the Mangiamele opinion: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc...