In early February 2002 (Superbowl unitend), respondent acted as pilot-in-command of a Piper aircraft on a number of flights between Port Clinton, Ohio, and Put-In-Bay Island, Ohio.

Passengers, most of whom respondent did not personally know, were onboard each flight. The Administrator claims that these flights were for compensation or hire, therefore running afoul of the cited regulations. On appeal, respondent continues to argue that there was no compensation - he was transporting friends of friends to (and/or from) a Super bowl party at Mr. Ed's Bar and Grille, owned by respondent's friend Ed Fitzgerald, and received no form of payment. However, he misperceives the definition of compensation long-established through the Administrator's interpretations and NTSB case law.

Mr. Ed's charged a flat price for the party, and it included air transportation. Apparently, if arrangements had been made by Mr. Fitzgerald with air charter operators, they had fallen through. There were people who had paid to be flown to Put-In- Bay for whom there was no transportation available and, apparently, respondent came to the rescue. There is no evidence that respondent received any money directly. (Mr. Fitzgerald was subpoenaed by the Administrator to testify but failed to appear.) Nevertheless, compensation need not be direct nor in the form of money. Goodwill is a form of prohibited compensation.

Is "good will" economic gain?  The FAA thinks so.  Do you agree or disagree?Explain

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In the context of aviation and regulations regarding compensation or hire the term goodwill is consi... View the full answer