On 25 Mar 2004 12:07:02 -0800, (John Galban)
wrote:

Ray Andraka wrote in message ...
Since Mark had no other reason to go to the airport
other than to drop the passengers, he can't ask for any compensation at all. Even
then you need to be careful about non-cash benefits garnered by piloting the flight.


I've read a few FAA cases about this and I'd tend to agree. The
"commonality of purpose" test kicks in whenever money (or other
compensation) changes hands. In this case (assuming Mark is not a
part 135 operator), Mark made the trip for the purpose of delivering
the mechanic and pilots to the stranded airplane. Under the rules, he
cannot accept any compensation. There was no common purpose, so costs
cannot be shared. This was a simply delivery flight.

Not sure about the last comment, though. What non-cash benefits
would Mark gain by doing these guys a favor. If he assumes all costs
for the flight no compensation has taken place, no commonality of
purpose is required.

I thought I had read somewhere that someone got ding'd for doing
something like this because they logged time and that was considered
compensation (IIRC it was something like airplane needed to go
somewhere for an oil change or something, they said "sure i'll do
that", ferried the airplane to the shop, hung around for food while
the oil change was done, flew it back, and even though they didn't get
paid cash, logging time for it was considered compensation)?