"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.

That "compensation" is broader than a simple payment is not in dispute.
That compensation for a flight would include the mere privilege of making
that particular flight, is.

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.

If I misinterpreted your reason for quoting that ruling, I apologise. You
quoted it in a paragraph where you started with the assertion

It seems to me that the underlying implication of the rule is that in
the eyes of the FAA the pilot is supposed to be paying for the flight
expenses in all cases.

and I thought you were using that in support. The "goodwill" referred to by
the NTSB in that ruling is the expectation that the pilot would get paid, or
equivalent, at some future date for doing this "favor". In essence, neither
the law judge nor the Board believed that this was just a favor, and the
"goodwill" precedent seemed to be cited to contrast with the lack of
evidence that money changed hands. It did nothing to broaden the
interpretation of compensation to support your assertion above.

Julian