AC 61-142

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration

Advisory

Circular

Subject: Sharing Aircraft Operating

Expenses in Accordance with

14 CFR § 61.113(c)

Date: 2/25/20 AC No: 61-142

Initiated by: AFS-800 Change:

1 PURPOSE OF THIS ADVISORY CIRCULAR (AC). This AC provides guidance on

how a pilot may share flight expenses with passengers in a manner consistent with

Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It responds to Section 515 of the

FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Public Law 115-254) and sets forth the Federal

Aviation Administration’s (FAA) longstanding position with regard to the regulations

governing expense-sharing flights and the manner in which those flights relate to

operations that require a 14 CFR part 119 Operating Certificate.

The material in this AC is advisory in nature and does not constitute a regulation. This

guidance is not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied upon by the

Department of Transportation as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement action or

other administrative penalty. Conformity with this guidance document (as distinct from

existing statutes and regulations) is voluntary only, and nonconformity will not affect

rights and obligations under existing statutes and regulations. The contents of this

document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in

any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding

existing requirements under the law or agency policies. This document describes

acceptable means, but not the only means, for demonstrating compliance with the

applicable regulations. The FAA will consider other means of compliance that an

applicant may elect to present. While these guidelines are not mandatory, they are derived

from extensive FAA and industry experience in determining compliance with 14 CFR

part 61.

The content of this AC does not change or create any additional regulatory requirements,

nor does it authorize changes in, or permit deviations from, existing regulatory

requirements.

2 AUDIENCE. This AC applies to pilots exercising private pilot privileges who wish to

share the costs of operating an aircraft during a flight with passengers. Specifically, this

AC applies to those pilots sharing expenses under part 61, § 61.113(c) and broadly

applies to those pilots operating under other part 61 expense-sharing provisions,

including §§ 61.101 and 61.315.

See §§ 61.101(a)(2) (Recreational Pilot); 61.113(c), (d), and (e) (Private Pilot); 61.315(b) (Sport Pilot).

2/25/20 AC 61-142

3 WHERE YOU CAN FIND THIS AC. You can find this AC on the FAA’s website at

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars.

4 RELATED DOCUMENTS.

4.1 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The following part 61 sections are related to this

AC. You can download the full text of these regulations at the U.S. Government

Publishing Office e-CFR website (http://www.ecfr.gov). You can order a paper copy by

sending a request to the U.S. Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing

Office, Washington, DC 20402-0001; by calling (202) 512-1800; or by sending a request

by facsimile to (202) 512-2250.

• Section 61.101(a)(2) and (e) (Recreational).

• Section 61.113(a) and (c) (Private).

• Section 61.133(a)(1) (Commercial).

• Section 61.167 (Airline Transport Pilot (ATP)).

• Section 61.315(b) (Sport).

4.2 Advisory Circulars (AC). AC 120-12A, Private Carriage Versus Common Carriage of

Persons or Property, published April 24, 1986, is related to the guidance in this AC. If

AC 120-12A is revised after publication of this AC, you should refer to the latest version

for guidance, which can be downloaded from the FAA website at

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/.

4.3 Legal Interpretations. Legal interpretations issued by the FAA’s Office of the Chief

Counsel can be found at https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/

practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/.

5 DEFINITIONS.

5.1 Air Carrier. A person who undertakes directly by lease, or other arrangement, to engage

in air transportation.

5.2 Air Commerce. Interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce or the transportation of

mail by aircraft or any operation or navigation of aircraft within the limits of any Federal

airway or any operation or navigation of aircraft which directly affects, or which may

endanger safety in, interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce.

5.3 Commercial Operator. A person who, for compensation or hire, engages in the carriage

by aircraft in air commerce of persons or property, other than as an air carrier or foreign

air carrier or under the authority of 14 CFR part 375. Where it is doubtful that an

operation is for “compensation or hire,” the test applied is whether the carriage by air is

Per 14 CFR part 1, § 1.1.

Per § 1.1.

2/25/20 AC 61-142

merely incidental to the person’s other business or is, in itself, a major enterprise for

profit.

5.4 Compensation. Receipt of anything of value that is contingent upon the pilot acting as

pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft.

5.5 Common Carriage. A holding out of a willingness to transport persons or property from

place to place for compensation or hire. The “holding out” that makes a person a common

carrier can be done in many ways; there is no specific rule or criteria as to how it is done.

5.6 Operating Expenses. Costs directly arising from the use of an aircraft for the purpose of

air navigation including the piloting of aircraft with or without the right of legal control

(as owner, lessee, or otherwise).

5.7 Private Pilot. A person who holds a private pilot certificate issued under the

requirements of part 61 subpart E. A private pilot is subject to the privileges and

limitations outlined in § 61.113. Generally, a private pilot may not act as PIC for

compensation or hire.

5.8 Pro Rata. Proportionately, according to a certain rate, percentage, or proportion.

6 GENERAL DISCUSSION.

6.1 General Rule. The FAA regulates nearly every aspect of private and commercial flight,

including certification and regulation of pilots and their operations. For example, refer to

Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) §§ 44701, 44703, and 44705. When

money is exchanged for transportation, the public expects, and the FAA demands, a

higher level of safety for the flying public.

As a general rule, private pilots may neither act as PIC of an aircraft for compensation or

hire nor act as PIC of an aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.

Refer to § 61.113(a). Conversely, a person who holds an ATP Certificate or a

Commercial Pilot Certificate may act as PIC of an aircraft for compensation or hire and

may carry persons or property for compensation or hire if the pilot is qualified in

accordance with part 61 and the requirements that apply to the operation being conducted

(e.g., 14 CFR part 135). Refer to §§ 61.133(a) and 61.167(a).

6.2 Exception. Section 61.113(b) through (h) contains seven exceptions to the general

prohibition against private pilots acting as PIC for compensation or hire referred to in

paragraph 6.1 above. This AC primarily discusses the expense-sharing exception

contained in § 61.113(c), which permits a pilot to share the operating expenses of a flight

with passengers provided the pilot pays at least his or her pro rata share of the operating

expenses of that flight. Those operating expenses are limited to fuel, oil, airport

expenditures, or rental fees. The § 61.113 exceptions also apply to ATP Certificate and

Commercial Pilot Certificate holders who are exercising private pilot privileges.

Per § 1.1.

2/25/20 AC 61-142

6.3 Distinction Between Pilot Privileges and Operational Authority. The privileges and

limitations conferred upon pilots are separate and distinct from the operational authority

required to conduct the flights. A person who holds an ATP Certificate or a Commercial

Pilot Certificate may act as PIC of an aircraft operated for compensation or hire and may

carry persons or property for compensation or hire. However, most of these commercial

operations require the operator to hold a certificate under part 119 authorizing such

operations. Therefore, in addition to ensuring compliance with the applicable pilot

privileges and limitations in part 61, a pilot must also ensure that the appropriate

operational authority has been granted prior to conducting any operation. Unless there is

a valid exception from operational certification,

pilots may not engage in common

carriage unless they are operating in accordance with an Air Carrier Certificate or

Operating Certificate issued under part 119.

7 EXPENSE SHARING UNDER § 61.113(c).

7.1 Sharing Expenses. A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the

operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided those expenses involve only

fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. A pilot exercising private pilot privileges

who accepts any reimbursement that exceeds the pilot’s pro rata share of the operating

expenses of a flight would be paying less than the pilot’s pro rata share, and thus would

be violating the limits of the expense-sharing provision of § 61.113(c). Additionally,

§ 61.113(c) permits reimbursement of expenses only from the passengers on the flight.

7.1.1 A pilot exercising private pilot privileges may share expenses with passengers within the

constraints of § 61.113(c). However, the pilot cannot conduct any commercial operation

under part 119 or the less stringent operating rules of part 91 (e.g., aerial work operations,

crop dusting, banner towing, ferry or training flights, or other commercial operations

excluded from the certification requirements of part 119).

7.1.2 Pilots must be aware that, unless an exception applies, any operation that meets all the

elements of common carriage—i.e., (1) the holding out of a willingness to (2) transport

persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation or hire—is subject to

part 119 certification and must be conducted under the regulatory provisions of part 121

or 135.

Therefore, private pilots who want to share expenses under § 61.113(c) must not

“hold out” to the public or a segment of the public as being willing to furnish

transportation to any person who wants it. Holding out is discussed in more detail in

paragraph 10.

7.1.3 Furthermore, a private pilot cannot avoid the compensation component of common

carriage by relying on the narrow expense-sharing exception to the general prohibition

against private pilots acting as PIC for compensation or hire. For this reason, in assessing

Section 119.1(e) identifies certain operations not subject to certification.

To be clear, a commercial pilot or ATP, like a private pilot, must abide by the requirements of common carriage.

Unless a valid exception from operational certification applies, in order to hold out as being able to transport persons

or property for compensation or hire, a commercial pilot or ATP must be operating in accordance with an Air

Carrier Certificate or Operating Certificate issued under part 119. Otherwise, such pilots would be exercising private

pilot privileges and subject to the limitations associated therewith.

2/25/20 AC 61-142

whether a particular operation involves common carriage, the FAA has consistently

interpreted § 61.113(c) to mean that a private pilot have a common purpose with his or

her passengers and to have his or her own reason for traveling to the destination.

The

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed this interpretation

and recognized the FAA’s “common purpose test” as a limitation on the expense-sharing

provision of § 61.113(c).

Common purpose is discussed in more detail in paragraph 9.

7.2 Allowed Expenses. The only operating expenses that may be shared are specifically

listed in § 61.113(c). Those expenses are fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or aircraft rental

fees.

7.3 Prohibited Expenses. Any expenses not specified in § 61.113(c) must be paid by the

pilot. Examples of these include, but are not limited to, aircraft maintenance, aircraft

insurance, aircraft depreciation, and navigation charts.

Example: Although oxygen may be consumed during a flight and is a direct

operating expense, the cost of oxygen cannot be shared with passengers because it

is not specifically listed in § 61.113(c).

8 COMPENSATION.

8.1 Explanation of Compensation. Compensation is the receipt of anything of value that is

contingent on the pilot operating the aircraft; i.e., but for the receipt of the compensation,

the pilot would not have taken that flight. Compensation does not require a profit, profit

motive, or the actual payment of funds. Reimbursement of expenses, accumulation of

flight time, and good will in the form of expected future economic benefits

can be

considered compensation. Furthermore, the pilot does not have to be the party receiving

the compensation; compensation occurs even if a third party receives a benefit as a result

of the flight.

8.2 Expense Sharing is Compensation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit found that the FAA correctly interpreted its regulation (§ 61.113) when

the FAA concluded the expense-sharing exception narrowly authorizes some

compensation.

The FAA has consistently stated that “the only allowable share-the-costs operations are those which are bona fide,

i.e., joint ventures for a common purpose with expenses being defrayed by all passengers and the pilot.” See Legal

Interpretation to Rebecca MacPherson (Aug. 13, 2014), also citing Legal Interpretation to Paul Ware (Feb. 13,

1976); Legal Interpretation to Thomas Chero (Dec. 26, 1985); Legal Interpretation to Peter Bunce (Nov. 19, 2008);

Legal Interpretation to Guy Mangiamele (Mar. 4, 2009); Legal Interpretation to Don Bobertz (May 18, 2009); Legal

Interpretation to Mark Haberkorn (Oct. 3, 2011).

FlyteNow, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration, 808 F.3d 882, 885-86 (D.C. Cir. 2015), rehearing en banc

denied.

Blakey v. Murray, NTSB Order No. EA-5061 (Oct. 28, 2003).

See FlyteNow, 808 F.3d 890. The court went on to state that “the text and structure of the regulation make clear

that allowable expense sharing is still compensation, albeit an authorized subcategory.”

2/25/20 AC 61-142

8.3 Additional Discussion. For additional discussion, the FAA has issued legal

interpretations with respect to what constitutes compensation. These legal interpretations

are available by searching the legal interpretations database at https://www.faa.gov/about/

office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/practice_areas/regulations/Interpretations/.

9 COMMON PURPOSE.

9.1 General. As previously stated, the FAA has consistently interpreted § 61.113(c) to mean

that a private pilot have a common purpose with his or her passengers and have his or her

own reason, other than the receipt of compensation for the flight, for traveling to the

destination. The existence of a bona fide common purpose is determined on a

case-by-case basis depending on the facts and circumstances of each individual case.

9.2 Destination. In assessing whether a pilot is operating consistently with the

expense-sharing provision, the FAA considers whether the pilot has his or her own

reason for traveling to the destination. When the pilot, not the passenger, chooses the

destination, it suggests that the pilot is not simply transporting passengers for

compensation. The common destination satisfies the common purpose test even if the

pilot and the passengers have different business to conduct at the destination. For some

time, the FAA has indicated that, in order for a common purpose to exist, the pilot must

have his or her own personal need to fly to that destination, i.e., his or her own particular

business to conduct at the destination. Therefore, when the pilot has no particular

business to conduct at the destination or the flight is only for the purpose of transporting

passengers, no common purpose exists. The common purpose test can be stated as “but

for the receipt of compensation, the pilot would not have taken that flight.”

9.3 Examples of Flights With and Without a Common Purpose.

9.3.1 The following are examples of situations with and without common purposes.

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).

Example 2:

A pilot plans to fly his plane to a wedding on Long Island. He is

transporting passengers whose destination is also Long Island, but they are

heading to a basketball game. As the pilot dictated the destination and both the

passengers and the pilot have personal business on Long Island, a common

purpose exists in these circumstances.

See Legal Interpretation to Ware (Feb. 13, 1976); Legal Interpretation to Chero (Dec. 26, 1985).

See Legal Interpretation to Haberkorn (Oct. 3, 2011).

2/25/20 AC 61-142

Example 3: John, a private pilot, plans to fly from Charlotte, NC to Boston, MA

to accumulate flight time. Pete, his friend, asks if he can hitch a ride to Boston

and share the expenses of the flight with him so that he can visit his

great-grandmother for the weekend. A common purpose exists for this flight

because John was already flying to Boston and would be making the trip

regardless of whether Pete shared the flight.

9.3.2 In a multiple-flight situation, the pilot may meet the common purpose criteria for expense

sharing with some, but not all, of the passengers.

Example:

Seven members of a running club, one of whom is a pilot, are

participating in a race and they rent a four-seat aircraft to travel to the event. The

pilot has to make two flights each way to transport all seven members. The pilot

shares a common purpose with the passengers only in the first flight. This is

because following the first flight the pilot would be at his destination and able to

participate in the race. The second trip fails the common purpose test because the

pilot has already achieved his purpose for the flight, i.e., getting to the race

location to participate. Any additional trips would be solely for the reason of

transportation of the additional members of the running club, and no common

purpose would exist. Therefore, the pilot would only be able to share expenses

with the first group of passengers.

10 HOLDING OUT.

10.1 General Discussion. It is important that private pilots who want to share expenses do not

“hold out” to the public, or a segment of the public, as willing to furnish transportation to

any person who wants it. When an operator meets all the elements of common carriage,

he or she cannot operate under the expense-sharing exception of § 61.113(c) and, unless

an exception applies, needs to hold a part 119 certificate and operate these flights under

part 121 or 135. Common carriage is defined as (1) a holding out of a willingness (2) to

transport persons or property (3) from place to place (4) for compensation or hire.

When a private pilot wants to share expenses under § 61.113(c), three of the four

elements of common carriage are already met; i.e., the pilot is transporting persons or

property from place to place for compensation or hire. The remaining element is whether

the pilot is “holding out a willingness” to do so.

10.2 What Constitutes Holding Out? “Holding out” 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. 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.

Historically, pilots have been found to be

See similar situation in Legal Interpretation to Bobertz (May 18, 2009).

See FlyteNow, 808 F.3d 890 (finding “no difficulty upholding the FAA’s interpretation of its regulations in this

case”).

See Legal Interpretation to John Yodice (Apr. 7, 1978); AC 120-12A.

2/25/20 AC 61-142

holding out when advertising services via rolodex,

brochures,

newspapers, magazines,

telephone directories, posters,

and website/internet postings.

10.2.1 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. A pilot may invite

passengers for expense-sharing flights; however, 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).

Generally, the FAA would not consider a mere loose acquaintance to be

part of a defined and limited group, which is a principle that may have added relevance in

the age of social media (see the discussion in paragraph 10.2.3.3.2).

10.2.2 The FAA distinguishes between offering expense-sharing services to a wide audience and

to a limited group because holding out to the public may suggest to unsuspecting

passengers that the pilot has met the higher regulatory requirements to carry passengers.

Absent this limitation on holding out, an unsuspecting passenger may unknowingly

assume the safety risks of flying in aircraft flown by pilots who lack the training,

experience, and operational oversight that the FAA requires of operators that conduct

common carriage.

10.2.3 The following are examples of scenarios that illustrate what the FAA would consider in

determining whether an operator is holding out. These examples are fact-specific and not

all-inclusive.

10.2.3.1 Use of Agents, Agencies, or Salespeople. Holding out may be accomplished

through actions of agents, agencies, or salesmen who may, themselves,

procure passenger traffic from the general public and collect them into groups

to be carried by the operator. It is particularly important to determine if such

agents or salespeople are in the business of selling transportation to the

traveling public not only through the “group” approach but also by individual

ticketing on known common carriers.

10.2.3.2 Print Publications. Advertising in newspapers, magazines, telephone

directories, brochures, posters, or any other type of publication is the most

direct means of holding out. In most, but not all, instances, this type of

See Legal Interpretation to David Brown (Apr. 16, 1976).

See Legal Interpretation to Hal Klee (Dec. 12, 1985); Legal Interpretation to Chero (Dec. 26, 1985).

See Legal Interpretation to William Dempsay (June 5, 1990).

See Legal Interpretation to MacPherson (Aug. 13, 2014); Legal Interpretation to Gregory Winton (Aug. 14, 2014).

See Legal Interpretation to Chero (Dec. 26, 1985); Legal Interpretation to Klee (Dec. 12, 1985). The company

solicited passengers via brochures offering to match prospective passengers wanting to fly to a certain destination

with a pilot willing to provide the flight in return for expenses. The FAA determined that this system was “not a

casual one of an individual pilot wishing to take some friends or acquaintances on a trip.” See also Legal

Interpretation to Haberkorn (Oct. 3, 2011) (implying that under § 61.113(c) a pilot should have a close personal

relationship with the passengers with whom the pilot intends to share expenses).

FlyteNow, 808 F.3d 895 (holding that the FAA’s distinction between offering expense-sharing services online to a

wide audience and those being offered to a limited group is justified).

2/25/20 AC 61-142

advertising reaches a sufficiently broad segment of the general public that it

would be considered holding out.

Example 1:

A private pilot wants to post a note with the specific time

and date she is traveling to Long Island on a fixed-base operator

(FBO) bulletin board in order to carry two additional passengers in

exchange for pro rata reimbursement of expenses under § 61.113(c).

Such advertisement on a bulletin board may be acceptable, as long as

it targets a limited and defined audience as discussed in

paragraph 10.2.1 above.

Example 2:

ABC Pilots Association decides to offer services

matching prospective passengers wanting to fly to a certain destination

with a pilot willing to provide the flight in return for expenses. ABC

Pilots Association advertises these services widely through brochures

seeking passengers from the public. This action would be considered

holding out.

Example 3: Mr. Smith, a private pilot, plans to fly to Boston, MA to

get fresh lobster for a lobster boil he is having in Cleveland, OH. He

publishes an ad in the local Cleveland area newspaper seeking one to

two passengers to share expenses on the trip to Boston. He receives

several responses and selects his passengers based on the order he

received responses to his ad. Mr. Smith’s advertisement in the local

Cleveland area newspaper would be considered holding out to a broad

segment of the general population. Further, his acceptance of the first

two passengers that responded to the ad indicate a willingness to

transport anyone who wanted to travel to his destination.

10.2.3.3 Internet. The internet has a virtually unlimited audience. Therefore, when

advertising on the internet, one typically would expect to reach, at a

minimum, a broad segment of the general public searching for the type of

information posted. Therefore, generally, an advertisement published on the

internet would not meet the criteria of a limited and defined group as

discussed in paragraph 10.2.1 and, in most instances, would be considered to

be holding out.

10.2.3.3.1 Websites. 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

See Legal Interpretation to Haberkorn (Oct. 3, 2011).

See Legal Interpretation to Klee (Dec. 12, 1985).

2/25/20 AC 61-142

website.

Therefore, pilots advertising flights on the website would be

deemed to be holding out.

Example:

A company developed a web-based service through which

pilots can offer their planned itineraries to passengers willing to share

the pilots’ expenses. The company facilitates connections between

pilots and potential passengers. The potential passengers must be

members of the web-based service. To become a member, one only

needs to fill out an online registration form. The pilot dictates the

origin, destination, and travel dates. A pilot may accept or reject a

request to be a passenger for any or no reason. The company would

facilitate the sharing of expenses between the pilot and the passengers

on a pro rata basis.

10.2.3.3.2 Social Media. Posts on social media pages are subject to the same limitations

as any other form of solicitation for expense sharing. Therefore, to avoid

being considered to be holding out, a pilot would need to be reaching out to a

defined and limited group comprised of people with whom he or she has an

ongoing, pre-existing relationship apart from expense sharing.

Example 1: A small neighborhood book club has set up a private

Facebook group and only members of the club who are approved by

the board are allowed to join and see posts. A member of the club

posts that he or she is piloting a plane to the beach for the day and is

asking if any other members would like to join and share expenses.

Here the group is limited and defined, and the FAA would likely not

consider this pilot to be holding out.

Example 2: On an open Facebook page that is viewed mainly by the

student body of the local community college, a pilot posts a

communication soliciting people to share expenses for a flight for

spring break. This would not be considered a defined and limited

group because it would not be limited to people with whom the pilot

has an ongoing, pre-existing relationship. Further, even if the

Facebook group were limited only to the student body, the size of the

student body likely would cause that group to be considered a broad

segment of the general public that the pilot would be willing to provide

transportation services to; and, therefore, the pilot would be considered

to be holding out.

10.2.3.3.3 Apps. Technology has advanced to a point where many services are provided

via applications on mobile or electronic devices. It may be that use of these

applications to advertise flights for cost sharing under § 61.113(c) is holding

out. Similar to the website in paragraph 10.2.3.3.1, the app is designed to

Note: The occasional refusal of service does not provide conclusive proof that a pilot is not a common carrier. See

AC 120-12A.

See FlyteNow, 808 F.3d 882.

2/25/20 AC 61-142

attract a broad segment of the public interested in transportation by air. Any

prospective passenger searching for flights could access the app, sign up,

search for flights, and readily arrange for travel. Therefore, the FAA would

consider pilots advertising flights on the app to be holding out.

Example: A company develops an application in which pilots and

potential passengers can be paired up to share costs of planned

itineraries. A pilot could enter his or her destination, time, date, and

origin for potential passengers to search for potential flights to

common destinations. In order to use the app, a user would simply

need to purchase and download the app and fill out a registration form.

10.2.3.3.4 Email. Advertisement through email for passengers to share expenses may be

acceptable in some situations; however, in other situations it may be

considered holding out. The FAA would not consider an email among close

friends to be holding out. On the other hand, sending an “email blast” to a

listserv or every friend, acquaintance, colleague, or contact of the pilot may be

considered to be holding out.

10.2.3.4 Personal Solicitation and Reputation/Course of Conduct. Physically

holding out, without advertising, where the pilot gains a reputation of serving

all, is sufficient to constitute an offer to carry all customers. There are many

means by which physically holding out can take place, e.g., personal

solicitation and course of conduct. A pilot’s course of conduct can be

sufficient to find that there has been a holding out of service to the public

because the course of conduct can indicate a willingness to serve all who

apply for service. The actions or conduct used to develop the reputation would

be considered to be holding out.

Example 1: Francisco and Rob are friends enjoying the weekend

relaxing in the city. Francisco, a private pilot, decides to fly to his lake

house for the remainder of the weekend and invites Rob along.

Francisco’s invitation to Rob in this instance would not be considered

holding out.

Example 2: Sarah is a private pilot and regularly attends aviation

conferences and events. While in attendance, Sarah tells everyone she

talks to that she is a private pilot who is willing to fly others to various

destinations. Regardless of Sarah’s success, Sarah’s expression of

willingness to serve all with whom contact is made that she can and

will perform the requested service is sufficient to be holding out.

Example 3: Fred is a private pilot. Every Friday, he flies to Orlando,

FL from Chicago, IL to visit his family. Everyone in his community

knows that if they want to fly to Orlando on any given weekend that

they just need to talk to Fred and he will fly them to Orlando for their

pro rata share of the flight expenses when he goes. Fred does not

2/25/20 AC 61-142

advertise that he is going to Orlando or that he is looking for

passengers. However, his conduct of regularly flying to Orlando and

accepting whichever community members want to fly to Orlando on a

given weekend as passengers has established a course of conduct such

that Fred might be considered to be holding out his services of flying

to Orlando.

11 SUMMARY.

11.1 Sharing Expenses. Pilots may share operating expenses with passengers on a pro rata

basis when those expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

These exceptions are themselves further limited. In assessing whether an expense-sharing

flight is properly conducted under the exception in § 61.113(c), the FAA considers

whether the pilot and passengers have a common purpose and whether the pilot has held

out as offering services to the public. The “common-purpose test” anticipates that the

pilot and expense-sharing passengers share a “bona fide common purpose” for their travel

and the pilot has chosen the destination. Communications with passengers for a

common-purpose flight are restricted to a defined and limited audience to avoid the

“holding out” element of common carriage.

11.2 Violation of Regulations. Receipt of compensation outside of the exceptions contained

in § 61.113 is a violation of part 61 subject to civil penalties under 49 U.S.C. § 46301. If

the flight does not fall under the exceptions, the pilot may be found to be operating an

aircraft as a commercial operator and must comply with the appropriate regulatory

requirements for air carrier and commercial operations.

12 QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES. Persons who have questions concerning the intended

operation of their aircraft and whether they would be considered to be holding out for

purposes of expense sharing under part 61 are encouraged to discuss their operation with

the General Aviation and Commercial Division of the FAA’s Flight Standards Service

(9-AFS-800-Correspondence@faa.gov).

Robert C. Carty

Deputy Executive Director, Flight Standards Service