"Geoffrey Barnes" wrote in message
ink.net...
Unless, of course, you're running an air taxi business which
thinks it is loosing out. But as I said before, that is a
_protectionist_ issue which shouldn't have anything to do
with the FAA.

I would agree that protectionism is a big part of it. And I would also
agree that the "unsuspecting public" plays a lesser role. But I also
wonder
whether the rule also exists to prevent putting non-commercial pilots in
positions where they face a difficult decision.

For example, I fly my boss and I to a meeting in a distant city. Let's
say
that I accept no money for this whatsoever, but that my boss is mighty
impressed that I can get him there and back without the hassles of dealing
with the airlines these days. Now I'm looking good compared to all the
other cubicle dwellers, and it looks like I got real a leg up on them when
the next office comes available, right?

But after the meeting, the weather closes in. My boss makes it clear that
he really needs to get back in time for his daughter's piano recital at
6:00
PM. I know my personal limits, and if it were just me in the plane, there
is no way that I would fly in that weather. But I also don't want to look
bad in front of the boss, don't want him holding me responsible for his
missing the recital, and don't want to lose the advantage and good will
that
I just earned that morning.

Sure, we are all pilots here and we know what the right answer is in this
situation. My boss is not a pilot, though, and will not be so
understanding. Even with nothing but good will at stake, there is this
additional weight in the decision-making process that a private pilot
would
probably be better off without. I suspect that's another reason why this
rule is in place.


Except that the situation you've just described is in fact now
completely legal. You can even be more relaxed and get reimbursed
for flying yourself and your boss. Part 135 rules don't apply.

The difference is that in your situation you were going to the same
meeting, so there is a common purpose. In "Mark"'s case, he'd never
have gone to the airfield without being asked to help out.

Risk wise, I agree with you. Your situation is far riskier than for Mark.
Which only goes to show that the current rules about commercial operation
don't properly address 'risk' nor 'implied consent', which in my opinion
are the only reasons for having them in the first place.