"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

You seem to be saying that the FAA would violate a pilot doing this, but
also saying that the FAA would not violate a pilot doing this. It's clear
what you intend to say, but the truth is that your comments are
self-contradictory. You simply don't seem to recognize this as the
potential commercial operation that it is.

"Potential commercial operation" is not the issue. There are two categories
of things that a private pilot can't do under 61.113:

---
(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section,

no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or
hire;

nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an
aircraft.
---

The first prohibition relates to whether compensation is paid for the
carriage of passengers or property. It doesn't cover "potential commercial
operations", and it doesn't matter if the operation would normally be
carried out by professionals. All that matters is whether someone is paying
someone else for a person to occupy a seat or for freight to occupy a seat.

The second prohibition is quite separate. It says that the private pilot
cannot receive compensation for acting as pilot.

I have yet to see an account of a case cited where the FAA has busted a
private pilot for flying for free which didn't come under the *first*
prohibition. The issue is *not* that flying for free is compensation, but
rather that someone is paying someone else for carriage, even if neither of
those parties is the pilot.

Roger Long cited a case in a thread a while back:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...2-gui.ntli.net
in which an FAA counsel opinion was quoted in just such a situation.

That some pilots get paid for ferry flights doesn't make it illegal for a
private pilot to fill the role for free.

Finally the exceptions in paragraphs (b) to (g) have to be read as just
that, exceptions from paragraph (a). It makes no sense to read

---
(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.

---

in isolation. If you were to read it in isolation, the "provided" clause
would make no sense: the pilot *must* pay his share if he includes only
fuel, oil and airport expenditures, but he does *not* have to do so if he
adds in an allowance for maintenance and hangarage(?). That's clearly
nonsensical. What (c) is doing is allowing the second prohibition in (a) to
be violated in certain circumstances. If (a) is not violated, (c) is
irrelevant. And thus it makes no difference if a (non-fare-paying)
passenger is carried on the ferry flight.

Julian Scarfe