In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

None of that has anything to do with a pilot flying for no pay, other than
perhaps the fact that YOU wouldn't allow a pilot to fly for no pay (and
honestly, just because the pilot is willing to fly for no pay, that doesn't
mean they're unqualified).

My question about this situation would be whether or not the pilot in
question has actually been trained and certified to act as a required
crewmember under part 135. If they're not going to pay the pilot, are
they going to take the time and go to the expense and trouble of
training that pilot? Part 135 training is not trivial, although someone
could certainly make it so. The company's FAA-approved training manual
outlines the number of hours of ground training required, as well as the
flight training requirements. After that, there is a checkride with
either a company check airman or FAA inspector. Then there is annual
recurrent training and a checkride (for SICs - PICs get semi-annual
checkrides). This all costs something. If the company needs the pilot,
they ought to be paying the pilot. If they're skimping on their pilots
and taking whoever will work for free, what else are they skimping on?

I would guess that what's really going on is that the pilot is "riding
along for experience" and flying any empty legs that can be flown under
part 91.

--
Larry Fransson
Aviation software for Mac OS X!
http://www.subcritical.com