"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
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 Super Bowl party case doesn't show that. The problem there was actual,
paying passengers, who paid for transportation. That's tangible
compensation, and has nothing to do with whether intangible compensation
(like logging hours) is considered "compensation" by the FAA.

In spite of the NTSB's comments regarding "goodwill", I don't read the
article as saying that that was a core component of their judgment, but
rather a secondary issue. The real problem was that the pilot participated
in what was a commercial operation, complete with paying passengers. (It
certainly didn't help things that the airplanes used were not Part 135
certified either).

I agree with your views with respect to 61.113, but I don't think that
particular case is the best example of how the pilot himself receives what
the FAA considers "compensation" even if he isn't paid in cash. There's too
many other distracting factors (after all, Julian apparently failed to
notice that, in addition to the other "commercial operation" issues, the
NTSB found that the pilot *did* receive compensation himself; I think that's
because the other issues distracted him from that one).

It *does* illustrate that *even if the pilot himself pays for the flight*,
he could potentially get into trouble, if the operation otherwise looks like
a commercial operation, or if the FAA and NTSB find that the pilot *still*
received some sort of compensation (even in the form of "goodwill"). That
latter point delves more deeply into what the FAA might not approve of than
the comments I've made do.

Frankly, with such liberal interpretations of "compensation" by the FAA and
NTSB, it boggles my mind that anyone might think that the FAA *doesn't* view
free flight time as compensation. (Hi Julian ).

Pete