In one of the last posts - it was suggested that you may accept the pax to contribute to fuel. I don't believe that is quite correct based on the response from CAA.
So looks like if you are both pilots and sharing the cost of the fuel that may be acceptable, but to accept a non flying person to contribute or donate fuel may be putting you on the wrong side of the law.FLIGHT FOR REWARD
1. The Legal Division has been requested to respond to questions raised by AVCOM in respect of issues concerning flight for reward.
2. In the first instance it is necessary to correct a misconception contained in the last paragraph of the request. No SACAA definition regarding reward exists in any of the legislation administered by the Authority. Furthermore, the concept of “reward” is not limited to aviation as such. The said concept is also relevant to other facets of the law, e.g. motor transport.
3. That being the case , one will have ascertain what the general meaning of the word “reward according to authoritative dictionaries “is, and to determine how the courts have interpreted the word in a legal context. The interpretation of the word was considered in Silberman v. Pearl Insurance 1962(3)) SA 3 844(W.) In this regard the Court stated the following principles to be applied in a given situation:
“(1) the reward must be a quid pro quo for the conveyance and not for something else
(2) The reward is a return or recompense made to or received by a person for some service or merit
(3) there need be no approximation of the quality between the payment and the service rendered
(4) Any sum of money, no matter how it is arrived at, which is given as a quid pro quo to the person who undertakes the conveyance of the passenger is a reward within the meaning of the Act and this is regardless of whether it results in a profit to the conveyor or not
(5) The reward need not necessarily consist of money.
(6) A reward need not necessarily be the result of a prior arrangement, but must be for conveyance
(7) The reward must accrue to the person who actually provided the conveyance
(8) It is immaterial whether the reward is given by the passenger himself or by another on behalf of the passenger
(9) Where driver and passenger enter upon a joint venture and hire a car, the cost of which they share, they are “conveying themselves”.
4. In R. Ntsime 19609(3) SA 703(T) the Court found that persons were conveyed for reward in contravention of section 9(1) of Act No 39 of 1930where the accused in the matter had arranged with a number of persons that he would transport them in his motor vehicle on a particular trip provided that they would fill his vehicle’s petrol tank on return and the passengers put in so much petrol as their finances allowed them on return.” The Court held that there was nothing in the word “ reward” which denoted an existing obligation , or some return or recompense for the conveyance of persons of goods in the pursuance of a contract , or that a financial advantage in the form of a profit should be derived from the conveyance.”Claassen –Dictionary of Legal Words and Phrases (Volume 4) at page R-90)
5. In Joubert-LAWSA –Volume 19 (Re-issue) in paragraph 545 at page 353 the following is stated in this regard in an aviation context: “The general rules in regard to what constitutes remuneration or reward …have emerged in a long series of decisions. The concept of remuneration of reward is that of a quid pro quo for the service of piloting or providing the conveyance. The consideration need not be in money, and it need not be commensurate with the value of the service, so that defraying part of the cost (for example by paying for the petrol consumed) could amount to remuneration n or reward...Furthermore, it is not necessary characteristic of remuneration or reward that there be a prior arrangement to provide it in consideration of the service. However, where nothing ids paid or given for the service of piloting or conveying , an arrangement amongst the participants to share the expenses of conveying themselves would not result in the payment of remuneration or reward. Likewise, a rental or other consideration for the mere letting of an aircraft, without providing any service in the piloting thereof in the conveying of passengers therein, would not amount to remuneration or reward.
6.In R. v Burger 1955(4) ()SA 454(C) a hotelier who took guests visiting his hotel on short flights in his aircraft to view the scenery was found to have contravened section2(1) of the International Air Services act1949( Act No 51 of 1949) where the cost of the flight was shared between himself and his guests( LAWSA -Footnote 7 in paragraph 545 at page 353).
7 In the case R. Mainline Distributors (Pty) Ltd 1957 (4) SA 124 (N) the court applied the dictionary meaning of the word “reward” namely “a recompense for services rendered where the word appeared in the definition of “Motor Carrier transportation” in section 1 of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930(Act No 39 of 1930) Claassen – (Volume 3) at page F-39).
8. The principles set out in the Silverman case as contained in paragraph 3 above, together with the references to the court cases discussed in paragraphs 4, 6 and7 above, illustrates how the issue of reward has to be dealt with in practice.
end of legal opinion.
If you are any the wiser after reading this, then you're smarter than I am.
All I can say, is that PPL's have been flying skydivers since Pontius was a pilot. As long as they do not get paid in money or other "reward" they are not contravening regulations. "Accumulation of hours" in the past has not been seen as reward, and I do not see that there is cause to change the precedent.
Regards
Colin
keeps me on my toes 
Sorry Morph - was not meant to be a picking on you. 