The difference is obvious: the pilot isn't
receiving any compensation from you at all when you fly free.

No, I mean any difference between flying and riding free. Of course
there is a difference, but is it one that should apply? My point is to
counter yours that "I see no reason you should be permitted to fly for
free, just because your friend broke his leg." I was already going to
=ride= for free, it just so happens I'm a pilot and qualified to fly his
plane home (even with him and his broken leg in it); I see no reason why
I should not be permitted to, or why the FAA gets to stick its nose in here.

I don't understand your question. As far as I know, it doesn't matter who
pays the scholarship money, it's still permitted.

On the one hand you are saying that if a pilot gets to fly for free,
that is compensation and makes it a commercial endavor. Well, when my
friend pays for the airplane, I am flying for free doing my instrument
training (or any other flight). The same is true when my father or my
fiancee pays. So why is one case commercial and the other not?

You just refuse to comprehend how the pilot makes a
net profit when paying less than his pro-rata share.

This new learning amazes me. Tell me again how the earth is banana
shaped. Profit is income minus outgo. Period.

the real issue is "compensation", which is the term the FAA
uses.

.... and with which I am taking issue. Of course I'm railing at the
wind, but this =is= Usenet, and there is plenty of wind.

Any money provided to the pilot beyond his fair share of the cost of the
flight is "compensation".

IOW if the pilot gets to fly for free, he is compensated. By what?
We're down to "joy of flying" and "historical record of experience".
Were this to be logically extended past the FAA (and that's my test of
reasonableness of word use), it would be compensation whenever I go to
the library and read a book. Now while I'd agree that I was
"enrichened" by the experience, any business that consideres itself to
have a profit whenever it learns something will not be in business long.

If your [car] passengers are forced to pay you for your room, along with all of
the car expenses, that sure sounds to me like the driver is charging for the
ride.

Well, yes, but the taxi and livery commission doesn't seem to have a
problem with this (except in France).

They do so for very good reasons, mostly related
to other pilots abusing the more relaxed version of the rules.

I'd like to see some of this. Do you have any cites?

So you'd skip the date rather than going Dutch? That seems silly.

I might not be able to afford to go dutch. And the pilot might be the
girl. Or the girl might be paying.

In any case, my point was that if the pilot is arranging the airplane for
the customer, the FAA is likely to consider that an illegal Part 135
operation, even if the customer actually pays for the airplane themself.

Correct. But the passenger could arrange for the plane himself, for
example through his business which owns an airplane. He could then come
to me (a friend) to fly that plane with him in it, and split the costs.
We would be safe from prosecution since, viewed as a commercial
enterprise, it is legal. Viewed as a private enterprise it is too grey
for comfort.

It was an "absolute" preceded by a qualifier, one that disqualified it as
"absolute".

The point where the absolute was is absolute, sort of like "it might be
because it is impossible"... when "it" is actually not impossible at
all. But I'll drop it.

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.