"Julian Scarfe" wrote in message
...
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.

Not sure what you're talking about. The case Peter Clark is quoting is a
completely different issue, where the pilot is not the person being
compensated, even though the flight was made "for compensation". The case
doesn't address whether free flight time is compensation at all, since the
case involved a much more clear-cut situation of paying passengers, nor does
the AOPA Pilot article make a claim that the case does.

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

The cases have been quoted. Just because I don't have them in front of me
doesn't mean they don't exist. Regardless, it's not really any of my
concern whether you agree or not. I know that I would never accept free
flight time where the donor had anything other than simply doing me a favor
in mind; that includes just flying the airplane to keep it from sitting
idle.

Pete