"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
Fifteen years ago I was on hiatus. Before that, a private pilot could fly
for costs. The old rule made sense to me. The new one does not.

I don't see why not. To me, the new rules make more sense than allowing a
Private pilot's entire costs to be paid by someone else. Any amount of
money a pilot spends less than his passengers is net profit. Net profit
means commercial enterprise. That's ignoring the fact that there is benefit
to the pilot above and beyond any benefit to his passengers.

In any case, whether the new rule makes sense to you or not, it is the new
rule.

Perhaps. But if I did it only occasionally, and the FBO was only an
initial reccomendation (or one of several I'm checked out at), and I was
not taking any more than costs, only the FAA would see that as "holding
out an illegal part 135."

The FAA's opinion is the only one that matters. Of course, you also added a
bunch of qualifications to the operation that weren't in the original
discussion.

All that said, I would still be surprised if there are many FBOs that would
be willing to be party to the kind of arrangement being discussed here. It
may well be that the FAA's opinion is entirely moot, since no one could
actually attempt this particular end-run around the regulations.

Pete