> [!quote] From [[FAA Safety Team]]'s [Misuse of Expense Sharing and Understanding Pilot Privileges](https://www.faasafety.gov/spans/noticeView.aspx?nid=12238) > When compensation is exchanged for transportation, the public expects, and the regulations demand, a higher level of safety. 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 14 C.F.R. § [[FAR 61.113 Private Pilot Privileges and Limitations|FAR 61.113]](a). Section 61.113(b) through (h) contains seven exceptions to this general prohibition against private pilots acting as PIC for compensation or hire. One commonly misapplied provision is 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 (may not pay less) his/her pro rata share of the operating expenses of that flight. Those expenses are strictly limited to fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees. In addition, only reimbursement from the passengers is allowed. > > (NOTE: The § 61.113 exceptions also apply to ATP and commercial certificate holders who are exercising private pilot privileges and also broadly applies under § [[FAR 61.101|FAR 61.101]] and § [[FAR 61.315|FAR 61.315]].) > > Pilots must also remember, if they want to share expenses under § 61.113(c), they must not "hold out" to the public or a segment of the public to expense share because that would put them into the realm 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. As discussed more below, common carriage changes the operating rules under which the flight must be conducted and, necessarily, triggers the higher certification and qualification requirements for pilots required by those operating rules. (See [[AC 120-12]]A). > > A major point of emphasis to keep in mind regarding expense sharing flights is the "common purpose test". This means, that the pilot must have his or her **own reason** for traveling to the destination, not simply for the transportation of the passengers. > > - For example: A private pilot is flying to Stillwater, Oklahoma, to visit her mother in the hospital over the weekend. Five of her friends would be coming with her to attend a football game that same weekend. She CAN legally share expenses because she has a reason to fly to Stillwater (visit her mother) not simply to transport her friends. Expanding the same scenario; if she has too many friends going to the football game that she has to make a second trip to pick up the rest, she CANNOT legally share expenses on the second trip because her purpose for flying to Stillwater was complete when she arrived the first time. The second flight was solely for the transportation of passengers. --- Interesting Case Study: [[BlackBird Air Constitutes Holding Out]] --- See also [[AC 61-142]]