"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I believe that it would depend on whether the owner of the aircraft was
getting something in the deal. It's hard to claim that the pilot is
actually flying FOR compensation, if there was no need for the pilot to
fly
the airplane. Just because the pilot could be considered compensated,
that
doesn't mean that the pilot did the flying FOR the compensation.

Now, the FAA could (would?) equivocate on whether the owner of the
aircraft
was getting something in return. For example, an airplane that sits idle
is
worse off than an airplane that is regularly flown. The FAA might accuse
the pilot of providing a service to the owner, simply by keeping the
airplane flown.

But it's not a violation of 61.113 (I presume you're talking about it *this*
time, Peter) to provide a service to someone. It's a violation to be
*compensated* for providing that service. If the owner says "make this
flight for me and I'll lend you the aircraft for a few hours for free next
week" then that could be construed as compensation. If he just says "please
make this flight for me", I don't think it can.

Julian