"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Russell Kent" wrote in message


IMHO it is a grey area because "Mark" didn't already have plans to go
to the airport where the 182 was down, therefore there is a
presumption that the flight is being made for some type of
compensation. In fact, Geoffrey refferred to it as "cashed in some
favors". Therefore, one could make the argument that "Mark" was
offering a charter flight service (albeit probably not a profitable
one).

It may be gray, but I'm sure the FAA isn't suggesting that Part 91 pilots
can't do favors for each other by denying them a flight to retrieve a
stranded plane.


You are not doing "favors" when you charge for it (even if it is
unprofitable)

Sure, the FAA reserves to right to interpret their rules as they see fit
at
the time of interpretation, but as long as "Mark" paid his pro-rata share
of
the flight cost, I think this would still fall under Part 91.


This flight absolutely does not fall under Part 91.

Mike
MU-2

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