[st2p]

That's not correct. See 14 CFR 61.113 (c) A private pilot may not pay less than the pro rata share of the operating expenses of a flight with passengers, provided the expenses involve only fuel, oil, airport expenditures, or rental fees.

edit: the exceptions of the CFR are (b) through (h) but (c) is the most typical

[0_00_0]

Tried to edit my other comment but accidentally deleted it.

So I just skimmed over the ruling here:

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/77E3D4B7...

and you're right (if you're getting at what I think you're getting at).

The argument is that expense sharing is compensation, but it is allowed under the FARs in specific circumstance. Difference here being that the combination of holding out on a public website and receiving compensation via expense sharing put it in common carrier land.

Which does seem to make sense under current rules.

[st2p]

Np. And right. I hated to be pedantic but outright dismissing the fact that there are exceptions to the compensation rule is wrong.

edit: wording

[cmurf]

Sharing operating expenses is not the same thing as compensation which connotes services rendered.

[st2p]

Sharing expenses is compensation and the reg alludes to that fact in part (a) and by virtue of the list of the exceptions to said reg. If you really need a concrete example that includes the "compensation or hire" verbiage look at exception (b) of the reg.

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) through (h) of this section, no person who holds a private pilot certificate may act as pilot in command of an aircraft that is carrying passengers or property for compensation or hire; nor may that person, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft.

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.