"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
I see no reason that [the regs should say that] a private pilot's costs
should not be able to be paid by somebody else

Well, I do. It happens, oddly enough, that the FAA agrees with me today.
Tomorrow, who knows.

and can think of quite a few examples where it would make sense.

Make sense to you, that is.

1: My friend who owns a plane flies me for free on a skiing trip. He
breaks his leg. I am prohibited from flying his plane home without
ponying up cash, even if he doesn't want the money. We'd have to hire a
commercial pilot to do this. (well, guess what - in the scenario under
discussion, I would =be= a commercial pilot and could therefore do it, but
a private pilot could not.)

I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for free, just because your
friend broke his leg. If anything allowing this gives you incentive to
break your friends' leg . Regardless, the rules aren't about
compassion...they are about preventing pilots from being paid to fly (and
that includes paying less than anyone else in the airplane).

2: My father thinks I should be instrument rated, and offers to pay for
flying lessons and flying time so that I can get my rating. Nixed by the
FAA.

This obviously is NOT "nixed by the FAA", since plenty of student pilots are
being paid scholarship money used to finance their education.

3: I fly three people on Monday, and one person on Tuesday. We share
costs equally. I pay more on Tuesday for the same flight.

So what? Why shouldn't you pay more for the same flight? If you don't, the
other guy has to pay three times what he paid on Monday. How is THAT fair?
This has to be one of the silliest so-called "examples" in your list.

4: I'm a member of a ski group - we drive up and whoever is driving gets
free lodging. We've been doing this for years, but this year we fly.
Free lodging is compensation - nixed... though I asked an FAA official
about this and they see it as a separate transaction, so as long as they
don't pay for the =flight=, they can pay as much lodging as they want and
I'm in the clear. Nixed or not? Depends on who has a burr up which part
of whose anatomy that day.

Presumably in the driving scenario, the riders don't pay gas and
maintenance? In this example, you simply share the cost of the flight with
your friends, rather than accepting the free lodging. In the end, you
should come out roughly the same. If not, then it seems to me that the deal
wasn't very fair to someone in the first place.

You can argue that these examples are unlikely, but that is besides the
point. The "new" rule (IMEO makes no sense.

I don't really care how likely or unlikely they are. I don't even see them
as "examples". If they are the best you can come up with, I don't even see
why YOU hold the belief you do, never mind am I swayed to change my own
position.

Any amount of money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net
profit. Net profit means commercial enterprise.

This is not the definition of net profit. Net profit is total intake
minus total outgo.

What isn't the definition?

I took it as granted I didn't have to throw the word "positive" in there for
you. And if you are complaining about the phrase "net profit means
commercial enterprise", you are willfully ignoring the correct
interpretation simply for the sake of being argumentative. That phrase is
obviously not intended to define "net profit". It describes what the
implication of a "[positive] net profit" is.

If the pilot's fair share of the flight is compensated for by any income,
that's profit. The legal way to compensate the pilot for the flight is for
the pilot to earn the money somewhere else, in a job unrelated to the
flight. The illegal way to compensate the pilot for the flight is for the
pilot to earn the money as part of the flight.

The old rule meant "no net profit". The new rule means something else.

I disagree. I don't know what the exact wording of the old rule was, but
the current rule clearly means "no net profit".

As for "net profit meaning commercial enterprise", that's not true either.

Of course it is. That is the FAA's definition of a pilot flying for
compensation. They have a net profit from the flight. That is, they
receive money offsetting their fair share of the cost of the flight.

Granted a commercial enterprise will need net profit to stay in business,
and will need quite a bit of net profit. But no commercial enterprise
will stay in business (without subsidy) if "net profit" means "loses as
much as their customers", which is what the new rule actually works out
to.

First of all, the only way for the pilot to "lose as much as their customer"
is for the pilot to pay his fair share.

Secondly, the thing you keep missing is that the pilot is both pilot and
customer. As customer, he is required to pay his fair share of the flight.
As pilot, he is not permitted to receive ANY compensation for his
participation in the flight. If he pays less than his fair share of the
flight, then he is still paying his fair share as a customer, but receiving
compensation as a pilot.

That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit to the pilot above and
beyond any benefit to his passengers.

I like to fly. This joy is a benefit. But if you really mean it that way
then I'm a commercial enterprise when I fly solo.

I wrote "that's ignoring the fact". What's so hard about "ignoring the
fact" for you to get on board with? The FAA has conveniently ignored the
joy of flying for the purpose of this discussion; you would do well to do so
as well.

I make a written record of what transpired, noting how long I was flying
and under what conditions, and keeping track of my flying experience. This
is a benefit inasmuch as I can use it for currency and future ratings. I
know the FAA has put its imprimateur on this twisting of the meaning of
words.

However I cannot =trade on= this "benefit".

Of course you can. You may be the sole pilot who doesn't bother to, but
other pilots trade on their recorded flight time all the time:

* Lower insurance rates
* Qualified to fly new types of airplanes (often due to FBO or insurance
rules, not FAA rules)
* Qualified for new pilot certificates
* Being chosen over a lower-time pilot for a paid flying job

There are plenty of other examples where flight time translated directly
into a net gain to the pilot, either in privileges, income, or both.

[...]
All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that
would be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed
here.

So would I. But an airplane owner might do this. In fact, I think it's
rather common in some circles (such as a company plane used for company
business under part 91).

It would be perfectly legal for an airplane owner to do that, for a pilot
who holds a Commercial Pilot certificate. I don't know what your point was
supposed to be, but you're just making mine for me.

It may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one
could actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Well, I don't agree with this particular absolute. I'm not even sure it's
all that hard, though I agree that an ordinary FBO is not likely to do
this.

"May well be" is an absolute? Um, okay. Whatever floats your boat.

Pete