On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:28:18 -0700, "Peter Duniho"
wrote:

"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.

Actually, I was only quoting that case in the context that the FAA and
NTSB appear to take the view that intangible things (including good
will) can and are also considered compensation WRTexamining whether
61.113 was violated or not. The specifics of the case are immaterial
to the concept that, according to the ruling, one of the tests to be
used in deciding if there is a violation of 61.113 or not includes
looking to see if there is evidence of (in the absence of direct
monetary compensation) any intangible benefits to be found, and if
they are present a violation has occurred. If I'm wrong in
interpreting the ruling to establish/use one prong of a multi-prong
test to see whether a violation has occurred, great, I'd like to
understand the dissenting opinion's logic.