"Dude" wrote in message

I am certainly no regs lawyer, so could someone tell me where this
"commonality of purpose" clause is?

That's the very part I was having a hard time with. We're talking about the
US only, but the NTSB ruled (see my post just off the root of this thread)
in a case involving a pair of TV reporters, an insrument student and his
instructor. The student made arrangements with the TV studio to fly the
reporters to another location unbeknownst to the instructor. The reporters
were not to return with the student/instructor. The NTSB ruled that while
the student may have been in the plane to receive instruction, the
passengers were in the plane purely for transportation to Point B.
Therefore, the student was in violation of Part 135 and 61.118 and the
instructor was also in violation of Part 135.

I have read several examples that say I can take a customer of mine
on a trip related to business so long as the business is not
transporting that person to the destination. Now you are saying that
because I want him to buy something from me I can't do it?

If he's buying from you, he's a customer and not an employee.

Also, how ridiculously stupid is this going to get? ...
I think someones hyper sensitive lawyer went overboard somewhere.

No doubt. My assertion throughout this thread is that it's patently
ridiculous for the FAA to forbid me to help a fellow pilot retrieve his
plane and have said pilot pay what would amount to 1/4 the cost of the
roundtrip flight. However, based on FAA and NTSB rulings, I cannot accept
any money from him nor can I even take him at all if I'm in a position to
gain "favor or goodwill" from him.

Of course, if we take that last definition to its extreme, I can't even take
friends on local fun flights that I would still be taking without them
because I would be generating "favor and goodwill" with them.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415
____________________