Recently, posted:

On Nov 21, 3:06 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, posted:

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%?

If the actual calculation doesn't matter -- e.g. it could be 1% or
99% as long as it can be "calculated precisely" -- then the FAR has
no regulatory power. How could one *not* meet the requirement if one
has a calculator? That is why I wrote that it would be moot.

Ok, thanks, I understand your point now. But you've missed the
essential meaning of "pro rata": it refers to a *proportionate* share,
not just any old calculated share. Hence, among four people, each
one's pro rata share would be 25%--not 1% or 99% or 50%.

In some specialized circumstances, pro rata amounts are not evenly
divided according to the number of people, but rather by some other
calculable criterion, such as the number of shares of a corporation
owned by each person. But by default, if you speak of a pro rata
distrubution among N people, you're referring to 1/Nth apiece, unless
a substitute criterion (such as corportate shares) is specified or
obvious.

Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It clarifies
the 50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make the regulation
rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to the application of
"pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the aircraft or number of
club members). If the FAA agrees with this usage then the matter is
settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the precedence of such as
free ferrying to be considered "compensation". ;-)

Regards,

Neil