"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...
Malcolm Teas wrote:

61.117 Private pilot privileges and limitations: Second in command
of aircraft requiring more than one pilot.

Except as provided in §61.113 of this part, no private pilot may, for
compensation or hire, act as second in command of an aircraft that is
type certificated for more than one pilot, nor may that pilot act as
second in command of such an aircraft that is carrying passengers or
property for compensation or hire.

Few small planes are type certified to require more than one pilot, so it's highly
unlikely that he would be serving as second in command of such a plane. As described,
the flight is not carrying anything for hire, so he wouldn't be doing that either.
This FAR is not applicable to the flight.

Yup! Absolutely right. I cut-and-pasted the wrong thing clearly.
Mea culpa. I saw the "Private pilot privileges and limitations" part
and started selecting text.


61.113 (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of
the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the
expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

Seems that flying back to the west coast would be compensation and
less than your pro-rata share of the flight. Since you're flying
alone then, your pro-rate share is 100%.

Since he's flying alone, there are no passengers, so this FAR doesn't apply either.

I understand your comment and might agree but for the "may not pay
less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight"
aspect. It's clear that the return trip will have operating expenses.
It's also clear that he won't be paying them.

I think the flight - as stated - violates the intent of the FARs. I'd
love to be asked to fly for free across the country, but am convinced
the FAA would take a dim view. But, I'm not PIC for this flight and
given my cut-and-paste error above, I doubt I'll claim to be a FAR
expert either. grin

-Malcolm Teas