Unfortunately, as with all things legalese, Common Purpose doesn't quite mean what you are attempting to make it mean.

Common purpose does not mean that both parties to a flight are both going to the same place for the same reason. It simply means that both parties would be going to the destination for their own reasons - their purposes are aligned. In other words, in the context of pilots and flying, the pilot needs to have been going to go to the destination in any case - and is not merely flying there for the purposes of conveying the passenger. Pretty much exactly what Yodice wrote.

I can't find the link now but it was referenced in the Cardiff thread. In that link, which I think represented an FAA opinion, it was stated that, if a pilot flew from A to B with a passenger, then the pilot had breakfast at B but the passenger attended a business meeting at B, then the flight was not a legitimate cost sharing flight because the pilot and passenger did not have the same reason for making the flight. Perhaps someone with a better memory than me can point us to that reference.

EXDAC: You might want to take a look at a more current AOPA article written by a different Yodice, in which Common Purpose is defined as the desire to travel to the same destination:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...legal-briefing

Thanks. I also found this link to be informative - https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...bSubmit=Search

I now think it's clear that FAA does not intend common purpose to mean that pilot and cost sharing passengers all have to have the same reason for flying to the destination. It's frustrating that I can't find the reference that seemed to imply that. Not a wasted effort though. I now have a new subject to discuss when I next give a flight review.

Here's a question.

Is it illegal to advertise as an FAA PPL in a US reg airplane a flight if the amount of cost to be shared is zero?

There are four tests for common carriage, and advertising a flight in the manner described satisfies three of those tests. The only test that your scenario does not satisfy is 'compensation'. If you are genuinely receiving no form of compensation, financial or otherwise, directly or otherwise as a result of the flight, then you are not in violation, but you might reasonably expect plenty of scrutiny.

All this talk about strict appliance of no compensation an common purpose, makes me wonder how many here in their PPL/hour building time did "illegal" flights.
I would guess a high percentage if not almost all.

Introducing 'EASA common purpose' will only do one thing, add bureaucracy for the good ones while the bad ones will give a sh#t anyways no matter what paper says. No, there is no sense in it at all other than uncover we are all unable to live common sense. Seriously, if we look at this incident - how would some paper tiger even change a little bit on that behavior? Regulations are for those who are willing to follow them, the others are unreachable by that.

I dislike this "common purpose" concept and I hope it will never find its way in EASA world.
It's a can of worms.

I want to be able to legally fly my daughter to her home in Great Britain even though I have no other interest in going there but letting her reach her destination. Same thing with a friend who would ask me to drop him/her in a place where he/she wants to go.
Of course, I don't ask any payment from them and I make sure they know and agree that I can cancel the flight until the last minute before departure.
If someone introduces "common purpose" in Europe, it will put those flights in a grey area.

However, I totally agree with the proposal that, in case of cost sharing, the pilot must at least bear a pro-rata part of the direct costs.
The only way to put commercial flying with a PPL licence to a stop is to ensure that the pilot looses money when doing such a flight.

To limit the pernicious effect of internet sites like Wingly, it would suffice to state that publicity for cost-sharing flights is only allowed if the destination and date/time of the flight is pre-decided by the pilot and indicated in the advertisement. Any internet site that tolerates advertisements breaking this rule would be fined.

With respect, you've misunderstood the concept of common purpose. Common purpose is only a consideration where there is a cost sharing arrangement (or where the pilot is receiving some compensation in connection with the flight). When you say "Of course, I don't ask any payment from them", common purpose ceases to have any impact on such flights, and it certainly doesn't put them into a grey area.

"The only test that your scenario does not satisfy is 'compensation'"

The FAA and NTSB Board both view the accrual of flight time as compensation when considering whether an operation in common carriage occurred or is likely to occur.

See Administrator v. Blackburn, 4 NTSB 409 (1982) affirmed in Blackburn v. NTSB, 709 F.2d 1514 (9th Cir. 1983), Administrator v. Mims, 7 NTSB 850 (1991), Administrator v. Wagner, NTSB Order No. EA-4081 (1994), Administrator v. Murray, NTSB Order No. EA-5061 (2003), Administrator v. Clair Aero, Inc., NTSB Order No. EA-5181 (2005), Administrator v. Wallace, NTSB Order No. EA-5461 (2009).

See also Memo (May 1982) from Bernard Geier, Chief, General Aviation and Commercial Division, to Chief, Flight Standards Division; and the memo (18 May 2009) to Don Bobertz, Attorney, Office of the Regional Counsel Western Pacific Region, AWP-007 from Rebecca B. MacPherson, Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations, AGC-200.

See also interpretations from the Office of the Chief Counsel for FAA to Judy Lincoln (30 Oct 1990) and to John W Harrington (23 Oct 1997).

All true Selfie, but in the question posed to us, the assumption is that the costs of the flight will be met by the pilot in full. That does not meet the hurdle for compensation.

The operator bearing the cost of the operation is not a sufficient defence.

Administrator v. Wallace, NTSB Order No. EA-5461 (2009):

So, it's a can of worms that'd better stay closed in EASA land.

And speaking about compensation, I often have been invited for a meal by a friend I had flown earlier. Of course I didn't do the flight for the meal. But if I have to have second thoughts before accepting the invitation because of legalities, it's gonna be a really pissing legal framework.

The FAA Common Purpose rule didn't help Ibbotson or Sala.

Fortunately most pilots can be trusted to conform their behaviour to the rule of law.

Those that don't often pay for it. Is it a reason to make ever more draconian laws? Wont stop the lawbreakers.

... and no more helping the fellow pilot from next stand in your hangar if his aircraft has to stay unplanned at the shop and we now simply fly there and get him back home ... do you really want that? We are a rather large group of pilots at my place and it is a real airmen environment. We help each other and I want that to stay. So, if one is bringing his plane to the shop and needs a lift back home, I want to be able to do that, even if I have no bloody 'common purpose'. I am pretty sure we find enough examples were this would be BS and my life experience - you never ever get this covered by 'regulations'. Oh, and I do prefer to live in a reality, not some theoretical bubble of digital dictators.

The common-purpose rule has no relevance to flights offered to the public on a compensation basis. These flights are common-carriage operations are subject to 14 CFR 119, making a requirement for an air operator certificate among others, and 14 CFR 135 or 121.

The common-purpose rule is only relevant to operations excluded or exempted by 14 CFR 119 and the pilot acts under a US pilot certificate. A relevant example is a cost-shared flight which is not advertised to the public. Advertising in online closed groups may be regarded as advertising to the public. See interpretation given 3 Oct 2011 to Haberkorn.

In an interpretation given 21 May 2014 to Andy Dobis: "It is important to note, however, that the privileges and limitations conferred upon pilots are a separate and distinct issue from whether these flights would be considered a commercial operation for a part 119 air carrier or commercial operator certificate is required."

In the appellate decision made 18 Dec 2015 in Flytenow Inc. vs. Federal Aviation Administration (link): "The common-purpose test has no bearing on whether compensation in the form of passengers' expense sharing, together with holding out to the general public, tends to show that a private pilot is operating as a common carrier."

ChickenHouse, if the common-purpose test is not passed and there is compensation in respect of a non-advertised flight then it is probably a private carriage operation. See 14 CFR 119.23(b).