Originally Posted by
Luc Lion
I am surprised by some comments here that assume that the interim report states the illegality of the flight.
I don't read any of that in the report.
It says that, if the flight was organised as a cost sharing flight, the FAA rules would apply ; i.e. pro-rata cost sharing and common purpose.
However, it is pretty obvious that the costs were neither borne by the pilot nor by the passenger.
Possibly by the operator or by a third person.
As the operator does not hold an air carrier certificate, this is a PART 91 flight.
As per FAR §61.113, in such a situation and if the aircraft transports passengers or goods, the pilot MUST hold a CPL licence.
If the aircraft were not carrying passenger or goods (eg: a ferry flight) and the pilot were not receiving any compensation, the flight would have been legal.
So the conclusion is the same : the flight was very probably illegal because the pilot was not holding a commercial licence.
However, this is inferred from other elements than just the report contents.
right but does the FAA also not state that the direct costs are borne by the OCCUPANTS of the craft (up to a maximum of six) on a pro-rata basis? A third party paying for the direct costs would not seem to meet the cost-sharing criteria.