PPL question payment for flight

"Roger Tschanz" wrote in message
...
You say that I am playing stupid word games.

Maybe it's because English isn't your first language. But yes, you are
playing stupid word games.

FAR Part 61.113
(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.

And whats written there?

...may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses...
e.g A one hour flight with 3 passengers costs 80$ rental fees.
so you have to pay a minimum of 20$. Thats the minimum!!!

That's the minimum for the DIRECT OPERATING COSTS of the flight. Nothing in
that regulation is intended to mean that you can add OTHER costs of the
flight to the passenger's bill.

Nothing is written about the maximum what a passenger has to pay!

Yes, something IS written about "the maximum what a passenger has to pay".
Since the only costs that can be shared are the DIRECT OPERATING COSTS, and
since the pilot must pay at least his pro-rata share, that means the
passengers may not pay more than their pro-rata share in aggregate.

Now, *a* passenger can still pay more than his pro-rata share, as long as
another passenger pays less. But when all of the money is counted up, the
pilot must pay at LEAST his pro-rata share, which means all of the
passengers together may NOT pay more than their pro-rata share. There's
your maximum right there.

For this case is paragraph (a)! Please read it!

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (g) of this section, no
person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command
of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation
or hire

Is there something written about what is included or not? No.
The definition is: ... for compensation or hire.

No, that's not the definition. That's the regulation. You need to look to
FAA interpretation to find the definition of "compensation", and that has
*consistently* been interpreted to be ANY benefit to the pilot. Permitted
benefits are described in paragraphs (b) through (g) (as paragraph (a)
specifically) says. Anything not described in those paragraphs would not be
a permitted benefit for a private pilot.

You think this is a word game? Maybe that's the reason why in the USofA,
you can make money by going to the judge because in a Microwave
Usermanual was nothing written about, not to put a pet in it!

Uh, right. Even if someone did win a judgment after they cooked their pet
(and they didn't), what does that have to do with the FAA's regulations?

Pete