Common instruments on small aircraft

Marty Shapiro wrote:

There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as
their is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises
when there is no commonality of purpose.

Find a case which says that where no compensation is paid. The
Carter case you cited involved transporting a friend's sick
father for medical treatment, and who promised to reimburse the
full cost. Without common purpose, not even cost-sharing (1/2)
is permissible. It is implied that the pilot didn't get paid,
perhaps because the man passed on. Made no difference; it was
the promise which was the compensation.

I'm referring only to the logging of time in your own plane on
your own fuel as compensation. Find the case where that's
prohibited on such narrow grounds. As per another poster, I used
to pick up and return Mom/Dad to the big Class airport when they
visited. Look then to how the Carter case discusses the pax
expectation of the skills of a comm'l pilot. So let's see. If I
fly them to an apt restaurant and return, they don't expect me to
have comm'l skills. If I drop them off at said apt, they do.

Fred F.

TxSrv wrote:
Marty Shapiro wrote:

There is no problem with you giving a friend a ride as long as
their is commonality of purpose to the trip. The problem arises
when there is no commonality of purpose.

Find a case which says that where no compensation is paid.

The following case is one where no _material_ compensation was paid, but
the FAA prevailed against the pilot:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/5061.PDF

It seems goodwill is considered compensation. Of course "goodwill" is
sometimes rather vague, though in certain contexts like accounting a
monetary value can be (and is) assigned for purposes of computing assets.

Here's a case where no material compensation _or_ goodwill was "earned" and
so the pilot managed to win the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

The cases I cite aren't the most relevant, but the U.S. court system (and
the NTSB) have placed only a fraction of the available case law on the net
for public access. I know there are commercial databases which would
provide comprehensive access but I'm not inclined at this time to subscribe
to them.

The NTSB provides a search mechanism of some of the case law regarding the
FARs he

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/O_n_O/query.asp

(By the way, several 61.113 case are filed under the subsection 61.118
which is listed in the current FARs as non-existent. I can only presume
that the numbering changed sometime after the year 2000.)

Jim Logajan wrote:
It seems goodwill is considered compensation.

Goodwill per NTSB always means a business context, such as
expectation of possible future $$ benefit. The two cases you
cited have complicating facts. In Murray, the pvt pilot had done
subcontract work for the tavern owner who threw on the Super
Bowl party deal which included Part 135 transport of the pax to
the party site. In both cases, the pilot showed up as a
substitute for a prearranged Part 135 flight where the charter
aircraft or 135 pilot was OTS. The pax likely assumed the
substitute guy was a commercial operation also.

I'm alluding only to a pure (and rather common) case of a favor
to a friend/relative, no business context, the pax know who you
are as not comm'l/charter, and the only "compensation" is your
logging time in your own airplane at your own expense.

Fred F.