[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...