On Nov 21, 10:35 am, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
(c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the
operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses
involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

So, the 50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
there are.

WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
the pro rata share is $1.

pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
adv.
In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.

Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
the 50% requirement.

What "generalized application"? He's just pointing out what the term
means; your interpretation contradicts its meaning.

And what "50% requirement"? Where do you see such a requirement in
the FARs?

Now, if someone
can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to pay 50% of
the cost of a flight

The only "support" needed is the observation that no such requirement
appears in the FARs. Instead, there is a clear *pro rata* requirement.

However, such a notion would make 61.113 (c) moot, so
it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

You're asserting an imaginary requirement, and defending it with an
imaginary criterion of mootness.