A commercial pilot's question about whether offering a scenic flight as a raffle prize at a personal wedding constitutes "holding out" or common carriage cuts directly to one of the most misunderstood regulatory distinctions in civil aviation — the line between private carriage and air carrier operations. Under 14 CFR Parts 119 and 135, common carriage is defined by four elements: holding out to carry persons or property, from place to place, for compensation or hire. The pilot's scenario implicates at least two of these elements in ways that are not resolved by operational factors such as the same-airport departure and arrival or the 25-nautical-mile limitation. Those parameters address airspace and geographic scope, not the legal character of the operation itself.
The most consequential issue is indirect compensation. FAA legal interpretations have consistently held that "compensation" is not limited to direct payment for a specific flight. Selling raffle tickets — even in a social context — constitutes a financial transaction from which the pilot derives economic benefit. The fact that the scenic flight is a prize rather than a direct purchase does not insulate the arrangement from regulatory scrutiny. The FAA's Office of the Chief Counsel has addressed analogous scenarios involving charity auctions and promotional flights, generally concluding that when a flight is used as an inducement to generate revenue (ticket sales), compensation exists regardless of the indirect structure. A commercial certificate, while necessary, is not sufficient — it authorizes compensation for certain flight instruction and aerial work under Part 91, but it does not authorize common carriage, which requires Part 135 certification at minimum.
The "holding out" question is equally problematic. Holding out occurs when a pilot or operator presents the availability of air transportation to the public or a segment thereof. A wedding guest list is arguably a defined and private group, which could support an argument against public holding out — but raffle ticket sales, depending on their distribution, may extend well beyond intimate acquaintances. If tickets are sold at any venue accessible to the general public, posted on social media, or distributed through commercial channels, the FAA would likely characterize the offer as directed at a segment of the public. The agency's interpretive standard does not require a formal advertisement; any systematic offering to persons who are not personally known to the operator can qualify. Even within a closed social circle, the sale of consideration for a chance at air transportation begins to resemble a commercial transaction in substance if not in form.
Pilots operating under Part 91 who hold commercial certificates often underestimate how readily informal arrangements can cross into air carrier territory. The FAA has historically taken an expansive view of holding out precisely because the economic incentive to circumvent Part 135 certification requirements is real. Part 135 imposes substantial operational, maintenance, crew qualification, and insurance burdens that many individual commercial pilots are not positioned to meet. The agency's concern is public safety — ensuring that passengers receiving air transportation for compensation have access to the oversight framework that Part 135 provides. A pilot who proceeds with the raffle arrangement without seeking FAA legal counsel or a Chief Counsel interpretation runs the risk of certificate action, civil penalties, and potential violation of federal aviation regulations governing air carrier operations without authorization.
The broader pattern this question reflects is increasingly visible in aviation enforcement circles: commercial pilots using social platforms and personal networks to monetize flying in creative ways that blur regulatory lines. Drone delivery compensation schemes, social media "influencer" flights, charity auction rides, and now wedding raffle prizes all test the boundaries of the holding-out doctrine. The FAA has signaled through enforcement actions and legal interpretations that it will apply the four-element common carriage test regardless of the informal or celebratory context in which the flight is offered. Any pilot considering a similar arrangement should obtain a specific FAA legal interpretation for the exact fact pattern before proceeding, and should consult with aviation legal counsel experienced in Part 119 and Part 135 compliance.