"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...

I trust AOPA's experts to review the cases for me, as well as other
resources. I don't have the specific examples in front of me, but it's
simply not in question that the FAA has considered flight time to be
"compensation". This is well-understood, and frequently reported.

For example, from http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...97/pc9710.html
:

If the different AOPA article quoted by Peter Clark in this thread really
interprets the case, for which the ruling is available for all to read, as
supporting this view, then I'm not convinced they're doing you a favour.

"The FAA interprets the term compensation in its broadest sense.
Compensation is not only the payment of money, but it is the receipt of
anything of value, and even the mere expectation of some benefit. To show
you how broad the FAA interpretation is, the agency, on several occasions,
has said that just building up flight time is compensation to the pilot
where the pilot does not pay the cost of operating the aircraft"

I'm not really going to be convinced except by docket numbers! This seems
to be an area where rumours reinforce themselves.

Like I said, this has been discussed so many times right here in this
newsgroup, it's hard to see how you can claim it's not the case unless
you're trolling. I know you're not (unless you've gone through some
radical
personality change), but even so...it's still hard to believe.

I don't read every thread, Peter, and while I've seen some assertions on the
subject, I've never seen anything that changed my opinion. I've now seen
two cases (the other was the letter posted by Roger Long with FAA counsel's
opinion) cited in support of the concept that flying for free is illegal.
Both arguments have rested on a lazy reading of what was actually written.

Julian