I thought it was understood we were talking about the typical case,
not the exceptional ones.

A private pilot going for an instrument rating is a typical case.

The point is that it IS possible for someone to pay for
someone else's training without violating 61.113.

61.113 is not the issue (or at least not the only issue). The FAA's
interpretation of 61.113 is. The interpretation I glean from trying to
make something consistant out of the cases we're talking about implies
that in this case, the pilot is getting free flying, free logging, and
therefore is being "compensated" for flying. And he's having fun to boot.

So your position is that the rule stipulates something, in spite of no
indication that it does, and in spite of no actual enforcement action even
attempting to claim it does?

That's rich.

Not so rich as you seem to make it. The rule says X. The FAA says, in
a certain case, "X means Y", without saying "only in this case does X
mean Y". Therefore, one is vulnerable if one violates Y. It is an
idiotic vulnerability, but it is one nonetheless.

I've yet to see an example of an enforcement action in which the application
of the policy was obviously idiotic.

The tow pilot case is one that comes to mind. Maybe the pilot should
have been busted FOR THE REASON that he was flying in a for-profit
situation (the glider company was getting compensation). Instead he was
butsed FOR THE REASON that he was =personally= getting compensation, the
definition being stretched to include "making a permanent record of
certain events which actually occured".

but IMHO the FAA has been
consistent in focusing on pilot activities that are in at least some
respects similar to commercial operations.

Maybe, but the use stated reasoning that does not follow this.

In your example, you are not flying solely for your own purpose. To
translate that example into something relevant to what I wrote, you'd have
to have three friends chip in for a flight in which you went by yourself for
a $120 hamburger.

Does it matter that the three friends aren't really interested in a
hamburger or in flying, but they go along anyway to keep the pilot
company, or because they want to protect an investment (the pilot flies
to a musical gig, using (for free) equipmenet owned by those three
friends, who would just as soon not let the pilot just take off with it
all.)

Sure it's a bit contrived, so is your limitation.

Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

Yes. I fully understand what you wrote. I disagree with some of it; we
are exploring exactly where that disagreement originates. (at least
that's what I think we're doing).

When wasn't it illegal? When, and under what rule, did the FAA allow the
holder of a Private pilot certificate operate a charter in which the
passenger simply paid the FBO for the use of the airplane?

Back when I was taking flying lessons, in 1980. The rule was that a
private pilot could share expenses. There was no pro-rata rule. It was
the opinion of my ground instructor (and apparantly quite a number of
others) that this meant that that the amount of sharing was up to the
pilot's discretion; he could share =all= the expenses to the passengers,
so long as they paid "not a penny more". The rental costs $120, I take
three passengers, they each chip in $40, I pay the FBO $120, it's all
ok. As you point out, it makes no difference if they pay me in cash or
check, and it makes no difference whether or not I actually hold the
cash and hand it to the FBO, or the passengers hand the money to the FBO
for me.

Shouldn't be illegal.
Why not?

For the same reason it shouldn't be illegal for me to do the same in a car.

You think it should be legal for a pilot to operate a charter outside the
existing rules governing commercial operations, by flying a passenger
wherever they want to go, as long as that passenger is the one who pays
directly for the airplane?

I certainly don't. If you do, then you have a basic philosophical
difference with the FAA that is far greater than the simple question of how
to interpret the rules.

Why do you call it a charter, when you don't call a shared flight a
charter? After all, the pilot gets a benefit out of a shared flight too.

I think it should be perfectly legal for a private pilot to say to his
classmates that he loves to fly, and if somebody wants to fly somewhere,
he'd be happy to do it, as a private pilot, for expenses. It should not
be legal for him to =misrepresent= himself as a commercial operator
(with the attendent safety and regulatory illusions it would give the
passenger). But I see nothing wrong with somebody from my wife's church
asking me if I'd be willing to fly him to Boston. I see nothing wrong
with it if I'm going to Boston anyway for a different reason, I see
nothing wrong with it if I'm going to Cape Cod and I could drop him off,
and I see nothing wrong with it if I just like to fly and would enjoy
the trip, and I don't really care where I fly. Boston's a good a
destination as any.

Why do you see a problem with it?

That you are calling it a "charter" is telling, because it's not a
charter at all.

Nowadays this is
called "holding out".
Yup, that's true. I don't see how that's specific to college though. It's
true no matter where you are.

It's not specific to college. But college is one place where I think
it's quite appropriate to "hold out" in this manner, so long as a pilot
is not =misrepresnting= the flight as a commercial operation. It's
equally appropriate to "hold out" for car pools too come Spring Break,
and not be prosecuted for "operating an illegal taxi".

Your parenthetical statement is part of the problem. The FAA does not want
the general public to have the impression that non-commercially certificated
pilots and operations are a suitable replacement for the air travel
industry. By restricting pilots from holding themselves out as generally
willing to fly wherever and whenever a person asks them to, the FAA is
attempting to make clear the distinction between an on-demand commercial
operation and a pilot inviting a friend for a recreational flight.

I think this is a poor way to do it. It points to the wrong
differences, it addresses the wrong issues, and it sets traps for what
would otherwise be an innocent operation.

Frankly, they are [more concerned with] with the person who
crosses the line and effectively creates an illegal business out of a
situation disguised as the former.

I agree with that concern. I think they've gone about it wrong.

I'm sorry that you don't understand this, but it's a pretty clear
distinction to me.

I do understand it.

If your friend really wanted to help out, he could just hire someone else to
fly the plane back, with you aboard.

It's not my friend that's concerned (about me). Rather, I want to (be
able to) do a favor for my friend and fly him and his airplane back. I
shouldn't need a commercial certificate to do this.

No one has to. It may be that they have to do less flying without sharing
costs, but no one has to.

Ok, I'll be more specific. They "have to in order to...". Of course
they could choose not to fly as much. That would be an undesirable side
effect.

You are confusing intent of the rule with intent of the actor.

I think both intents are important. Rules should be written to convey
the intent of (i.e. the reason for) the rule. The reason for the rule
should take into account the intent of the actor as well as the action
itself.

Why is my son within his rights to accept this compensation and log the
training?
Because he is not acting as PIC.

Sure he is. He's a fully qualified private pilot, and he's receiving
instruction under the hood. This is fairly typical.

In every case that I have ever read (including some recent ones
posted here), an instructor on board qualified to act as PIC was held to be
PIC.

This is somewhat silly too. And though I can see why the FAA may want
to apply this rule, it has nothing to do with compensation, and to hang
the compensation thing on this is weak.

You believe that the FAA does NOT want to forbid all things that SHOULD be
forbidden?

Yes. Flying in thunderstorms is not forbidden. It's incredibly stupid
though. Flying beyond one's competence is not forbidden (though flying
beyond one's currency is). Some things should not be done by some, but
are ok done by others. This is where judgement comes in, and the FAA
grants pilots much wider latitude here than (say) the DMV. Granting
this kind of latitude inherently fails to forbid some things that should
not be done.

Jose
--
"Never trust anything that can think for itself, if you can't see where
it keeps its brain." (chapter 10 of book 3 - Harry Potter).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.