On Nov 21, 4:49 pm, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It clarifies
the 50% notion that I've been taught,

Sorry, I can't understand your reply well enough to tell whether you'e
agreeing with me. You say my interpretation "clarifies" the 50%
requirement, but in fact my interpretation is that there is no such
requirement.

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).

I don't follow what your're saying. "Pro rata", by default, refers to
an even distribution among the participants. No other criterion is
specified in the relevant FAR, so it's just referring to an even
split. Shares of ownership or number of club members has no bearing.

If the FAA agrees with this usage then the matter is
settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the precedence [you mean 'precedents']
such as free ferrying to be considered "compensation". ;-)

But how is that a precedent for the examples under discussion here?
Free flight time is indeed a valuable commodity. So if it's provided
in exchange for a service that one often pays a commercial pilot to
perform, then it is indeed compensation. And private pilots can't
receive compensation for flying, except under specified conditions.

But the point is that the cases under discussion here are indeed
covered by the specified exceptions (the cases a choosing to fly,
rather than drive, to a business meeting; or flying with friends and
splitting the flight expenses evenly, i.e. pro rata). In the ferrying
case, the specified exceptions do *not* apply. So that case is no
precedent for situations where the specified exceptions *do* apply.