"Captain Wubba" wrote in message
om...
[...]
One CFI I talked to said basically that he thinks that the FAA expects
*precisely* that. The that limitation precludes the exercise of the
certificate for *any* flight where there is a reasonable expectation
that business may be furthered as any result of that flight.

I find it hard to believe that the FAA would agree with that CFI, at least
not on the basis of the conversation alone. Just because you discussed
business in the airplane, that does not mean that the airplane contributed
to the furtherance of the business. The word "furtherance" implies that the
aircraft somehow contributed to the business in a unique way, in a way that
could not have been accomplished without the aircraft.

Things that might be in "furtherance" of a business: flight demonstration of
an aircraft as part of a sales effort; a real estate agenet showing
potential buyers property from the air; aerial photography; traffic
reporting; and yes, carriage of passengers to a business meeting elsewhere.

Of course in the "flight to a golf game" scenario, the FAA would undoubtedly
look closely at your relationship with the person in question. Friends and
business occasionally mix, but usually the parties are either primarily
friends, with very little business dealing, or business partners, with a
little social interaction thrown in. If it turned out that you had very
little reason to interact with the person, other than due to a business
relationship, they very well could find that discussing business in the
airplane, or even just the golf trip itself, constituted "furtherance of
business".

That said, I'm not terribly concerned about the potential for restriction.
An outright prohibition on "furtherance of business" exists only for sport
and recreational pilots, certificates that are very clearly intended for a
very narrow kind of flying and which are intentionally designed to greatly
limit the number and type of passengers that the pilot might carry. Banning
carriage of a "business plus golf partner" seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The FAA has a clear history of eliminating grey areas through interpreting
the regulations to take the most strict meaning possible. I don't think
this would be any different.

Pete