One problem is that if you strictly follow all the rules you cannot seem to
fly anybody anywhere. Let's say my wife wants to go visit a friend of hers
300 miles away. If I fly her there the FAA could turn around and say I had
no reason to go there and by telling my wife I would fly her on such trips
during my training I was "putting myself out for compensation" (namely,
being allowed to train).

So, it's not a matter of breaking rules, it's a matter of which ones and how
severely. We're always breaking some rule.


"Todd Pattist" wrote in message
...
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

Yes, I read about that in AOPA Pilot (if it's the same one I recall).
It's
not a relevant example though, because what tripped the pilot up was the
"for hire" clause, not the "for compensation" clause.

Also, you do note that in the end, the pilot was absolved, in a rare NTSB
reversal. So the case is more an example of how the FAA can make your
life
miserable, and less an example of what the rules actually mean.

The NTSB was at pains to establish that the pilot did not
"hold himself out for compensation or hire." IIRC, the
original question was whether it would be OK to fly two
people to city A, split the cost 3 ways and then fly back
alone, paying all the cost of the return. It would probably
depend on whether the pilot was found to "hold himself out
for compensation or hire." If you post a notice on a board
that you will transport people under the arrangement above,
there would be no common purpose for the flight and the
NTSB/FAA would probably find that you were holding yourself
out "for compensation or hire." It's not relevant whether
you make or lose money on the operation, only that you say
you will provide transportation for the specified amount -
namely 2/3 of the outbound flight cost.
Todd Pattist
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
___
Make a commitment to learn something from every flight.
Share what you learn.