Peter Duniho wrote:
"Jim Logajan" wrote in message
.. .
Sorry Larry and Jose, but there's at least one case which is similar in
facts to that which transpired between Jay and his friend and the FAA lost
the case on appeal:

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/alj/O_n_O/do...ation/4791.PDF

While an interesting and gratifying read (nice to see the Board overturn an
FAA action once in awhile), I don't see how it's relevant here. The only
point being made here is that *if* compensation is given to the pilot, that
would be a violation.

In the case you're showing us, the outcome very much hinged on the pilot's
ability to show *not only that he had not received compensation*, but also
that he convinced the Board that he had made very clear that the flight was
not a revenue flight, and that he would accept no compensation, not even
payment for the fuel.

If you look at the references to other cases in the decision you posted,
you'll notice that a pilot flying a revenue flight, even if he did not
personally get compensated, also runs afoul of the rules (since the flight
is "for hire", even though the pilot is not). In those cases, however, the
pilot was found to have done so knowingly. In the case you posted, even
though someone received compensation, the pilot himself not only did not, he
also made it very clear at the time that no payment would be required for
the flight, nor accepted.

This was why he was eventually found innocent, and frankly it was hardly a
slam-dunk for him even so. If they'd been having a bad day, I could easily
see the NTSB having taken a slightly different interpretation of the events
and upholding the original charges.

(Why Keenan was willing to pay the invoice sent to him by the other guy
later is an entirely different matter, but only because there was no dispite
about whether the pilot thought the flight was a revenue flight or not).

John Yodice wrote in AOPA Pilot a few years back about a pilot who carried
passengers who merely shared expenses, and who was found guilty of the
compensation rules, simply because those passengers were not traveling for
the same reason as the pilot (if I recall correctly, one or some were going
to a football game, and others or one were not). That may be the case that
Larry and Jose are recalling as well.

Pete

In that paticular case, the passengers paid for the flight, the flight
was solicited and advertised, and the passengers had an expectation of
a comercial operation. These facts were the basis of the FAA ruling. I
agree with the FAA ruling on that case because if a passenger pays for
a comercial flight, they diserve the extra level of safty given by the
part 135 operations.

I don't think this case is very relevaent to the current arguments.