"Jose" wrote in message
m...
A private pilot going for an instrument rating is a typical case.

A private pilot going for an instrument rating in which the private pilot is
the one who is acting as PIC is NOT the typical case.

This is the first of many misinterpretations in your most recent post of
things that I've written. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume
that you are so dedicated to your position, that you are unconsciously
misinterpreting what I've written. The alternative is that you are
intentionally ignoring the written meaning of my words.

Either way, I'm going to clarify for you all of these misinterpretations and
then I'm done. You obviously have a predecided notion about what's the
rules should be and what they are, and your interpretation not only of the
case law but also of what I've written is being influenced by that notion.
As well, I have a predecided notion and while I think I'm doing a better job
reading your posts than you are mine, my point of view is still influenced
by that notion and you are so distant from what I feel is a reasonable
approach to looking at the case law and the rules, that I can't imagine this
discussion achieving anything productive.

So, here are your other clarifications, then I'm out of this sub-thread:

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.

Since 61.113 specifically addresses only those situations in which the pilot
is acting as PIC, it very MUCH is the only issue with respect to the
question of whether the pilot acting as PIC affects the application of
61.113. This is entirely outside the question of the FAA's interpretation
of the word "compensation".

Misinterpretation #2.

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.

Again, without the pilot acting as PIC, 61.113 is irrelevant.

Misinterpretation #3.

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.)

No, it does not matter one bit.

Sure it's a bit contrived,

Yes, it is incredibly contrived, and you would NEVER be able to prove that
assertion in any court, administrative or otherwise.

so is your limitation.

My "limitation" is contrived? It's not contrived...it's a direct
consequence of the rules as stated and interpreted.

Misinterpretation #4.

Then you *do* understand what I wrote means.

Yes. I fully understand what you wrote.

Then why did you write "I don't understand what that means"?

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.

So say you. My understanding of the rules prior to the inclusion of the
"pro-rata" phrase is that the FAA always held that "sharing" implied
"pro-rata". They only added that text because there were people like you
and your instructor who wishfully believed otherwise.

Show me some actual documentation that shows that the FAA considered
arbitrary sharing, up to zero contribution from the pilot, as legal
"sharing" of costs for a Private pilot and I'll accept your statement. I
don't believe you can.

Shouldn't be illegal.
Why not?

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

It IS illegal for you to do the same in a car. Ironically enough, we just
had a bunch of messages in this very newsgroup about unlicensed taxis. It's
the exact same thing.

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.

Because I'm talking specifically about a charter operation, that's why. I'm
not talking about your friend paying the rental rate, I'm talking about the
pilot who flies all sorts of people, hiding the fact that it's in fact a
charter operation by having the people pay for the rental and not accepting
any other payments.

Why in the world do you insist on not only ignoring the fact that I'm using
the word "charter" to mean something specific, but then question me on why I
would use that word? All you've accomplished is to show me that you are so
dead-set on being contrary to what I've written, that you cannot be bothered
to take the time to comprehend what I've written. You just jump to whatever
the first conclusion you find that you can sink your teeth into.

Misinterpretation #5.

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.

Yes, clearly you think it should be.

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

The operation I'm talking about IS a charter. That you insist on applying
my use of the word "charter" to some other operation, and that you then use
that misinterpretation of my use of the word "charter" to claim that my use
is "telling" is in and of itself telling.

Misinterpretation #6.

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.

I don't see how it's any more appropriate in college than anywhere else. As
far as I know, the FARs don't provide specific waivers for behavior based on
one's age or educational enrollment.

It's equally appropriate to "hold out" for car pools too come Spring
Break, and not be prosecuted for "operating an illegal taxi".

Actually, if someone held out advertising a "car pool" to wherever anyone
else wanted to go, that likely WOULD be illegal.

It's likely that enforcement is almost never pursued, if ever. But that
doesn't change the legality. And in most cases, student car pools occur to
destinations that the students already had in common.

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.

Nothing is stopping you from doing a favor for your friend as long as you
can afford to. Just as nothing is stopping you from flying anywhere you
want to go, as long as you can afford to.

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.

My inability to turn a profit flying without jumping through a bunch of
regulatory hoops is IMHO a undesirable side effect. So what? That doesn't
justify removing those regulatory hoops. It just means that I don't desire
the side effect.

"That would be an undesirable side effect" carries zero weight as a debating
point.

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

I think both intents are important.

Not with respect to interpreting what I've written. When I used the word
"intent", it was applied to the intent of the actor, not the intent of the
rules. Regardless of what you think is important, you need to stick to my
use of the word if you want to address what I've written.

Misinterpretation #7.

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.

That does not make him the person acting as PIC. Why you think it does is
beyond me.

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.

So your argument that the compensation rules are silly is based on your
claim that the assignment of the PIC rules are silly as well? Forgive if I
find that to be an empty and weightless debating point as well.

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.

Have you read 61.113? It is ALL ABOUT who is PIC. The question of who is
acting as PIC absolutely relates DIRECTLY to how 61.113 applies.

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

Yes. Flying in thunderstorms is not forbidden.

For that to be an example, you need to show that flying in thunderstorms
SHOULD be forbidden *and* that the FAA does NOT want to forbid flying in
thunderstorms. The fact that they haven't done so doesn't show that they
don't want to.

It's incredibly stupid though. Flying beyond one's competence is not
forbidden (though flying beyond one's currency is).

Again, you have not shown either component of the condition to be true.
Neither the requirement that flying beyond one's competence SHOULD be
forbidden, nor that the FAA does NOT want to forbid flying beyond one's
competence.

[...] Granting this kind of latitude inherently fails to forbid some
things that should not be done.

I did not write "that should not be done". I wrote "that SHOULD be
forbidden". These are different things. If you want to provide a
counter-example, you need to conform to the structure of the original
statement.

Anyway, that's a few logical mistakes and no fewer than SEVEN
misinterpretations of what I wrote. Frankly, I don't find that to be a
useful way to discuss anything, and even if you were discussing this in a
logical, error-free manner I can't say that I think there's any benefit from
the discussion.

The rules are as they are, I personally don't find them all that onerous,
and that's that. If you do, get off your butt and lobby some FAA official
or whoever it takes and get the rules changed. You're not going to convince
me that the current rules are all that terrible, but I generally welcome the
sort of relaxation in the rules that you're proposing. Wouldn't bother me
one bit if you got your way. Go for it...you never know what you might
accomplish if you put the same effort into the project as you do in writing
Usenet posts.

Pete