Club Management Issue

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message


They can offer all they want. They just can't *charge* for it.


Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Realizing we're talking about the FAA, that still doesn't pass the "common
sense" rule. I see this as no different than offering to pay a friend
the cost (or, in this case, half the cost) of driving me to the plane
instead of flying.

The FAA is drawing a distinction between private pilots and pilots for hire,
but accepting pro rata share of flight costs to fly a fellow pilot to his
stranded plane does not seem to me to be a commercial exercise in and of
itself.

However, I remain open to the idea that my interpretation of the reg is
incorrect. Can you point me to another interpretation or legal ruling that
demonstrates that Mark cannot accept even pro rata payment for the outbound
leg of this flight?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________

John T wrote:

Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot accept an offer of payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

That's correct. He has to be going there anyway.

George Patterson
Battle, n; A method of untying with the teeth a political knot that would
not yield to the tongue.

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...

Now turn that around. Are you saying Mark cannot iaccept an offer of
payment
for *pro rata share* of the flight costs for the trip out? (I assume that
Mark would pay his return expenses in entirety.)

Absent some other clear explanation, the presence of such a dead-head leg on
the return trip would raise a significant suspicion in my mind that the
outbound trip did not have a commonality of purpose.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com