"Peter Duniho" wrote in
:

"John T" wrote in message
ws.com...
[...] You're saying Mark can't offer or accept a request from me to
take me to Little Airport unless he were specifically going to that
airport?

No, he's not saying that.

I understand your "commonality clause" argument, but it seems you're
taking
it's interpretation to an extreme. I find it difficult to believe
that
even
the FAA would say pilots can't offer to help other pilots in need of
transportation to/from stranded planes.

No problem, because they don't say that.

The problem is when Mark receives ANY money for the flight. Even
pro-rata sharing is not allowed if there was no "commonality of
purpose".

If Mark pays for the flight himself, he's allowed to volunteer his
time and money however he likes.

Pete



I say let Mark fly and then just pull up to the pump and fill up marks
plane with fuel, and maybe the next time he needs fuel also. No ones to
know who's credit card was used... of course that's not relevant to was
it legal under the regulations or not..., just would you get caught...
unlikely, but that's the way I would do it.

IMHO (from a "not even a student pilot yet") the regs were written in
such a way to absolutely regulate any commercial activity and close any
and all potential loopholes that someone could come up with. In doing
so, these regs shoot themselves in the foot by keeping someone from
"donating" there time, while not wanting to "donate" their money in the
form of fuel, oil, etc.

It is akin to telling me I can't let my father fill up my car with gas
while I drive with him around town, cause then I would have to get a taxi
license. Ridiculous.... When a regulation is written like this it
degrades the legitimacy of all the other regs written by the same
agency... I expect there are quite a few FAA regs that fit in this
category...


--
ET


"A common mistake people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete
fools."---- Douglas Adams