61.113 and expense reimbursements

[Ron Garret]

I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?

rg

[kontiki]

Ron Garret wrote:
> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>
No, because the travel was incidental to your job and your company
has a policy of reimbursing travel expenses for its employees. You
were not carrying any passengers and the trip was a necessary aspect
of your job.

[Jim Logajan]

Ron Garret > wrote:
> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?

Probably not. 61.113(b) indicates you are okay if the flight is "incidental
to that business or employment." I believe that what "incidental" means is
that all the business required of you is that you show up at the meeting
but does not specify mode of transport. It is your choice whether to take a
commercial flight or fly yourself. The choice of transport is not relevant
to the underlying business purpose of the travel. I believe that is the
meaning and intent of "incidental".

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
kontiki > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> > company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> > flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
> >
> No, because the travel was incidental to your job and your company
> has a policy of reimbursing travel expenses for its employees. You
> were not carrying any passengers and the trip was a necessary aspect
> of your job.

OK... suppose I was carrying passengers who were colleagues attending
the same meeting. If the company reimburses the entire cost of the
flight (as opposed to the pro-rata share of the expenses for the
passengers) have I violated 61.113(c)? What if I get a separate
reimbursement for the pro-rata share of the cost for the passengers and
my own share?

rg

[F. Baum]

On Nov 19, 11:38 am, Ron Garret > wrote:
> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>
RG,
A question similar to this came up a short while ago and it produced
all manor of interpritations of 61.113. The fact of the matter is that
the FAA doesnt consistently interprate thier own rules. Anyone here
who can tell you otherwise on Usnet is only stating opinion. Reread
paragragh B and if you still have questions ask an aviation attorney.
KF Baum

[kontiki]

Ron Garret wrote:
> In article >,
> kontiki > wrote:
>
>> Ron Garret wrote:
>>> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
>>> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
>>> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>>>
>> No, because the travel was incidental to your job and your company
>> has a policy of reimbursing travel expenses for its employees. You
>> were not carrying any passengers and the trip was a necessary aspect
>> of your job.
>
> OK... suppose I was carrying passengers who were colleagues attending
> the same meeting. If the company reimburses the entire cost of the
> flight (as opposed to the pro-rata share of the expenses for the
> passengers) have I violated 61.113(c)? What if I get a separate
> reimbursement for the pro-rata share of the cost for the passengers and
> my own share?
>
> rg

Well, I am not an aviation attorney, nor do I work for the FAA
(often two different and opposing schools of thought). That being
said... as long as your company has a written policy regarding
travel reimbursement that is applied consistently across modes
of travel I think you will be fine. This policy should also
clearly state what reimbursement procedures are when two or more
employees share one vehicle.

If the company doesn't have a written policy then questions could
arise... resulting in various interpretations... not the least of
which might be your insurance policy on the plane which prohibits
commercial operations... (i.e. other than personal or incidental
to business travel).

[Peter Dohm]

"F. Baum" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 19, 11:38 am, Ron Garret > wrote:
>> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
>> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
>> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>>
> RG,
> A question similar to this came up a short while ago and it produced
> all manor of interpritations of 61.113. The fact of the matter is that
> the FAA doesnt consistently interprate thier own rules. Anyone here
> who can tell you otherwise on Usnet is only stating opinion. Reread
> paragragh B and if you still have questions ask an aviation attorney.
> KF Baum
>
And on that subject, ask AOPA. That is part of why your membership is so
valuable!

Peter

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
kontiki > wrote:

> Ron Garret wrote:
> > In article >,
> > kontiki > wrote:
> >
> >> Ron Garret wrote:
> >>> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> >>> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> >>> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
> >>>
> >> No, because the travel was incidental to your job and your company
> >> has a policy of reimbursing travel expenses for its employees. You
> >> were not carrying any passengers and the trip was a necessary aspect
> >> of your job.
> >
> > OK... suppose I was carrying passengers who were colleagues attending
> > the same meeting. If the company reimburses the entire cost of the
> > flight (as opposed to the pro-rata share of the expenses for the
> > passengers) have I violated 61.113(c)? What if I get a separate
> > reimbursement for the pro-rata share of the cost for the passengers and
> > my own share?
> >
> > rg
>
> Well, I am not an aviation attorney, nor do I work for the FAA
> (often two different and opposing schools of thought). That being
> said... as long as your company has a written policy regarding
> travel reimbursement that is applied consistently across modes
> of travel I think you will be fine. This policy should also
> clearly state what reimbursement procedures are when two or more
> employees share one vehicle.
>
> If the company doesn't have a written policy then questions could
> arise... resulting in various interpretations... not the least of
> which might be your insurance policy on the plane which prohibits
> commercial operations... (i.e. other than personal or incidental
> to business travel).

Thanks!

rg

[F. Baum]

On Nov 19, 4:12 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
> > RG,
Reread
> > paragragh B and if you still have questions ask an aviation attorney.
> > KF Baum
>
> And on that subject, ask AOPA. That is part of why your membership is so
> valuable!

Peter, I dont think AOPA can do much for you in this case. In cases I
have heard about, they have not been very helpful and I think they
would only be guessing also. I still think an Aviation Attorney would
be the way to go.
F Baum

[Peter Dohm]

"F. Baum" > wrote in message
...
> On Nov 19, 4:12 pm, "Peter Dohm" > wrote:
>> > RG,
> Reread
>> > paragragh B and if you still have questions ask an aviation attorney.
>> > KF Baum
>>
>> And on that subject, ask AOPA. That is part of why your membership is so
>> valuable!
>
> Peter, I dont think AOPA can do much for you in this case. In cases I
> have heard about, they have not been very helpful and I think they
> would only be guessing also. I still think an Aviation Attorney would
> be the way to go.
> F Baum

You may very well be right.

Peter

[Maxwell]

"Ron Garret" > wrote in message
...
> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>

Hi Ron,

You might want to reference the thread titled "Ferry flight a commercial
op?" that began last week on 11/13, if you haven't already.

If you follow all the references given, it would seem your situation, and
most any other, has been denied at one time or the other by the FAA.
Granted, by the wording of the FARs most would interpret them to allow your
activity. But actual historical decisions tell another story.

[RST Engineering]

Let's cut through the horse****.

I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let that
go for the moment).

My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS mileage
(48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle. Vehicle is
automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I choose.

The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many other
employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5 cents a mile.

I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to the
conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a company
employee while I am at the conference.

I get home without incident.

I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and multiply
it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case closed.

I have an accident on the way to or the way from the conference. Let the
lawyers sort it out. I was on company time; let the company lawyers decide
fault and such.

The FARs have relatively little to do with the process. You aren't being
paid to fly; you are being recompensated for getting yourself to the
conference and participating.

Then again, I've only been doing this for forty years, but what do I know?

Jim




--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

[Gig 601XL Builder]

RST Engineering wrote:
> Let's cut through the horse****.
>
> I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let
> that go for the moment).
>
> My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS
> mileage (48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle. Vehicle is
> automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I
> choose.
> The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many other
> employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5 cents a
> mile.
> I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to
> the conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a
> company employee while I am at the conference.
>
> I get home without incident.
>
> I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and
> multiply it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case
> closed.

Let's modify that some and see if it would still be FAA legal.

Gerry, Kelly and same get the same 48.5c/mile from the company and give it
to you.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> RST Engineering wrote:
>> Let's cut through the horse****.
>>
>> I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let
>> that go for the moment).
>>
>> My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS
>> mileage (48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle.
>> Vehicle is automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I
>> choose.
>> The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many
>> other employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5
>> cents a mile.
>> I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to
>> the conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a
>> company employee while I am at the conference.
>>
>> I get home without incident.
>>
>> I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and
>> multiply it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case
>> closed.
>
> Let's modify that some and see if it would still be FAA legal.
>
> Gerry, Kelly and same get the same 48.5c/mile from the company and
> give it to you.
>
As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the cost of
the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if someone has a bug
up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they don't have to be right or
interpret the FARs correctly.

Neil

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:38:57 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
>company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
>flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>
>rg

No.

You meet the requirements of 61.113(b)
--ron

[BT]

> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the cost of
> the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if someone has a bug
> up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they don't have to be right or
> interpret the FARs correctly.
>
> Neil

As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro rata share of
the cost of the flight.
50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example was three
others.

B

[Neil Gould]

Recently, BT > posted:

>> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the cost
>> of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if someone
>> has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they don't
>> have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.
>>
>> Neil
>
> As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro rata
> share of the cost of the flight.
> 50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example was
> three others.
>
Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:

(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.

So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot must
pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors there are.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, BT > posted:
>
>>> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the cost
>>> of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if someone
>>> has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they don't
>>> have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>> As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro rata
>> share of the cost of the flight.
>> 50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example was
>> three others.
>>
> Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:
>
> (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.
>
> So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
> must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
> there are.
>
> Neil

WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100 the
pro rata share is $1.

pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
adv.
In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, BT > posted:
>>
>>>> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the
>>>> cost of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if
>>>> someone has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they
>>>> don't have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>
>>> As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro rata
>>> share of the cost of the flight.
>>> 50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example was
>>> three others.
>>>
>> Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:
>>
>> (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.
>>
>> So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
>> must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
>> there are.
>>
>> Neil
>
> WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
> the pro rata share is $1.
>
> pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
> adv.
> In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
>
Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
the >50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate exactly"
20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private pilot pays, then
the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid compensation.

As long as the private pilot must pay >50% of the cost of the flight, the
sum of all other contributions can't exceed that amount. Now, if someone
can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to pay >50% of
the cost of a flight except under the remaining 61.113 guidelines, that is
a different matter. However, such a notion would make 61.113 (c) moot, so
it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Neil
Who will continue to pay >50% of the cost of the flight.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Neil Gould" > wrote:

> > WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
> > the pro rata share is $1.
> >
> > pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
> > adv.
> > In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
> >
> Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
> the >50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate exactly"
> 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private pilot pays, then
> the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid compensation.

where is this ">50%" requirement?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

[C J Campbell[_1_]]

On 2007-11-19 10:38:57 -0800, Ron Garret > said:

> I'm a private pilot. If I fly myself to a business meeting for a
> company that I work for and they reimburse me for the cost of the
> flight, have I violated FAR 61.113?
>
> rg

Probably not if you are flying by yourself. Questionable if you are
carrying passengers or property on behalf of the company.

Contrary to what others have said, the FAA has been fairly consistent
in their opinions. There is no reason a company cannot reimburse you
for incidental personal transportation expenses. However, carrying
passengers or property for hire must be as a commercial pilot. This is
why companies hire commercial pilots to fly their corporate aircraft.
So carrying passengers or property would probably be considered a
violation.

There are liability issues as well. If there were an accident and you
were carrying these passengers and receiving more than your pro-rata
reimbursement for them, then an insurance company or a tort lawyer
would certainly argue that you were conducting a commercial operation.

Finally, of course, there are Federal Income Tax questions. There may
be some limits there for how much the company can reimburse you.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

[Jim Macklin]

I think the >50% was just made up and repeated.
Expenses for a trip that can be shared by a private pilot generally are
limited to aircraft expenses. Such things a rental cars and hotels are not
considered. A private pilot who is an salesman can take sales literature
and merchandise.

Most companies and the IRS will limit reimbursements to a standard car
mileage rate.

A CPA/attorney and consultation with the FAA in your region would be a good
idea before you make the flights.



"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| "Neil Gould" > wrote:
|
| > > WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
| > > the pro rata share is $1.
| > >
| > > pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
| > > adv.
| > > In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
| > >
| > Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
| > the >50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate exactly"
| > 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private pilot pays,
then
| > the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid compensation.
|
| where is this ">50%" requirement?
|
| --
| Bob Noel
| (goodness, please trim replies!!!)
|

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Recently, BT > posted:
>>>
>>>>> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the
>>>>> cost of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if
>>>>> someone has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you, they
>>>>> don't have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>> As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro rata
>>>> share of the cost of the flight.
>>>> 50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example
>>>> was three others.
>>>>
>>> Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:
>>>
>>> (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.
>>>
>>> So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
>>> must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
>>> there are.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>> WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
>> the pro rata share is $1.
>>
>> pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
>> adv.
>> In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
>>
> Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account
> for the >50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate
> exactly" 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private
> pilot pays, then the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid
> compensation.
>
> As long as the private pilot must pay >50% of the cost of the flight,
> the sum of all other contributions can't exceed that amount. Now, if
> someone can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to
> pay >50% of the cost of a flight except under the remaining 61.113
> guidelines, that is a different matter. However, such a notion would
> make 61.113 (c) moot, so it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.
>
> Neil
> Who will continue to pay >50% of the cost of the flight.

I just went back a reread all of 61.113. No where can I find the phrase
"greater than 50%" or even 50%. 61.113 (c) as written above is the only part
of the regulation that discusses splitting of costs of flight among the
passengers of a PPL piloted aircraft.

Since there is no definition of "pro rata" in the FAR definition section we
must assume that pro rata is meant to be the common usage which means, as
I've written above, In proportion, according to a factor that can be
calculated exactly. In this case the factor that can be calculated exactly
is the number of passengers.

Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price + airport
fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know the cost of
flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance prepaids I have to
deduct those before I do the math as the regulation specifically says that I
can only pro rata the fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fee.

I'm curious where you get the >51% rule?

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 10:35 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> > Neil Gould wrote:
> >> (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.
>
> >> So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private pilot
> >> must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many contributors
> >> there are.
>
> > WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are 100
> > the pro rata share is $1.
>
> > pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
> > adv.
> > In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
>
> Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account for
> the >50% requirement.

What "generalized application"? He's just pointing out what the term
means; your interpretation contradicts its meaning.

And what ">50% requirement"? Where do you see such a requirement in
the FARs?

> Now, if someone
> can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to pay >50% of
> the cost of a flight

The only "support" needed is the observation that no such requirement
appears in the FARs. Instead, there is a clear *pro rata* requirement.

> However, such a notion would make 61.113 (c) moot, so
> it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

You're asserting an imaginary requirement, and defending it with an
imaginary criterion of mootness.

[Maxwell]

> wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 10:35 am, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> > Neil Gould wrote:

>> However, such a notion would make 61.113 (c) moot, so
>> it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.

>Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
>does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
>lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?

>You're asserting an imaginary requirement, and defending it with an
>imaginary criterion of mootness.

If you believe a private pilot cannot receive free or reduced cost flying
time, such as the examples argued in the "ferry flight" thread, it's ALL
moot!

[Andrew Sarangan]

What if Jerry, Kelly and Sam are not employees of the same company?



On Nov 20, 12:19 am, "RST Engineering" >
wrote:
> Let's cut through the horse****.
>
> I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let that
> go for the moment).
>
> My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS mileage
> (48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle. Vehicle is
> automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I choose.
>
> The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many other
> employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5 cents a mile.
>
> I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to the
> conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a company
> employee while I am at the conference.
>
> I get home without incident.
>
> I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and multiply
> it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case closed.
>
> I have an accident on the way to or the way from the conference. Let the
> lawyers sort it out. I was on company time; let the company lawyers decide
> fault and such.
>
> The FARs have relatively little to do with the process. You aren't being
> paid to fly; you are being recompensated for getting yourself to the
> conference and participating.
>
> Then again, I've only been doing this for forty years, but what do I know?
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
> --Henry Ford

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 3:06 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Recently, > posted:
>
> > Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
> > does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
> > lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?
>
> If the actual calculation doesn't matter -- e.g. it could be 1% or 99% as
> long as it can be "calculated precisely" -- then the FAR has no regulatory
> power. How could one *not* meet the requirement if one has a calculator?
> That is why I wrote that it would be moot.

Ok, thanks, I understand your point now. But you've missed the
essential meaning of "pro rata": it refers to a *proportionate* share,
not just any old calculated share. Hence, among four people, each
one's pro rata share would be 25%--not 1% or 99% or 50%.

In some specialized circumstances, pro rata amounts are not evenly
divided according to the number of people, but rather by some other
calculable criterion, such as the number of shares of a corporation
owned by each person. But by default, if you speak of a pro rata
distrubution among N people, you're referring to 1/Nth apiece, unless
a substitute criterion (such as corportate shares) is specified or
obvious.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some
> additional parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even
> without the use of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee
> compliance with the FARs.
>

Pro Rata means a specific thing. It is well defined in law and common usage.
In 61.113 (c)the regulation is quite clear. A pilot may not pay less that
his pro rata share of the allowable expenses.


>> Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price +
>> airport fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know
>> the cost of flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance
>> prepaids I have to deduct those before I do the math as the
>> regulation specifically says that I can only pro rata the fuel, oil,
>> airport expenditures and rental fee.
>>
> The cost of maintenance etc. is typically factored into a rental fee.
> But, I think the purpose of 61.113 is to set guidelines for what might
> constitute compensation. You and other travel to a work site, they can
> share the cost of fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees.
> They can't pay you for the use of your plane and have you ferry them
> about, so the closer the financing looks like that's what is going
> on, the more likely one is to violating the FARs.


The purpose of 61.113 (c) is to set the items than can be shared pro rata
among a private pilot and his passengers. And it does it very well.


>
>> I'm curious where you get the >51% rule?
>>
> As has been mentioned by others, the >50% figure has been taught and
> tossed around for quite a while. I don't know if its origin is
> formal, was established by precedence, or just common practice. I
> would be happy to find out that my company could pay the entire cost
> of a flight without it becoming an issue of compensation, but that
> seems a long shot unless someone can show evidence that it is an
> acceptable practice. Do you know of any such evidence?
>
> Neil


Not a long shot at all. Just read 61.113 (b). Not only can the company pick
up the tab they can pay you while you are doing it.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:
>>
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>> Recently, BT > posted:
>>>>
>>>>>> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the
>>>>>> cost of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if
>>>>>> someone has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you,
>>>>>> they don't have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neil
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro
>>>>> rata share of the cost of the flight.
>>>>> 50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example
>>>>> was three others.
>>>>>
>>>> Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:
>>>>
>>>> (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.
>>>>
>>>> So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private
>>>> pilot must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many
>>>> contributors there are.
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>
>>> WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are
>>> 100 the pro rata share is $1.
>>>
>>> pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
>>> adv.
>>> In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
>>>
>> Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account
>> for the >50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate
>> exactly" 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private
>> pilot pays, then the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid
>> compensation.
>>
>> As long as the private pilot must pay >50% of the cost of the flight,
>> the sum of all other contributions can't exceed that amount. Now, if
>> someone can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to
>> pay >50% of the cost of a flight except under the remaining 61.113
>> guidelines, that is a different matter. However, such a notion would
>> make 61.113 (c) moot, so it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.
>>
>> Neil
>> Who will continue to pay >50% of the cost of the flight.
>
> I just went back a reread all of 61.113. No where can I find the
> phrase "greater than 50%" or even 50%. 61.113 (c) as written above is
> the only part of the regulation that discusses splitting of costs of
> flight among the passengers of a PPL piloted aircraft.
>
> Since there is no definition of "pro rata" in the FAR definition
> section we must assume that pro rata is meant to be the common usage
> which means, as I've written above, In proportion, according to a
> factor that can be calculated exactly. In this case the factor that
> can be calculated exactly is the number of passengers.
>
Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some additional
parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even without the use
of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee compliance with the FARs.

> Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price +
> airport fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know
> the cost of flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance
> prepaids I have to deduct those before I do the math as the
> regulation specifically says that I can only pro rata the fuel, oil,
> airport expenditures and rental fee.
>
The cost of maintenance etc. is typically factored into a rental fee. But,
I think the purpose of 61.113 is to set guidelines for what might
constitute compensation. You and other travel to a work site, they can
share the cost of fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees. They
can't pay you for the use of your plane and have you ferry them about, so
the closer the financing looks like that's what is going on, the more
likely one is to violating the FARs.

> I'm curious where you get the >51% rule?
>
As has been mentioned by others, the >50% figure has been taught and
tossed around for quite a while. I don't know if its origin is formal, was
established by precedence, or just common practice. I would be happy to
find out that my company could pay the entire cost of a flight without it
becoming an issue of compensation, but that seems a long shot unless
someone can show evidence that it is an acceptable practice. Do you know
of any such evidence?

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:
>
> Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just 25%
> does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and non-mootness
> lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?
>
If the actual calculation doesn't matter -- e.g. it could be 1% or 99% as
long as it can be "calculated precisely" -- then the FAR has no regulatory
power. How could one *not* meet the requirement if one has a calculator?
That is why I wrote that it would be moot.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> On Nov 21, 3:06 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Recently, > posted:
>>
>>> Huh? Paying just 51% doesn't make 61.113(c) moot, but paying just
>>> 25% does make it moot? So the boundary between mootness and
>>> non-mootness lies somewhere between 50% and 25%?
>>
>> If the actual calculation doesn't matter -- e.g. it could be 1% or
>> 99% as long as it can be "calculated precisely" -- then the FAR has
>> no regulatory power. How could one *not* meet the requirement if one
>> has a calculator? That is why I wrote that it would be moot.
>
> Ok, thanks, I understand your point now. But you've missed the
> essential meaning of "pro rata": it refers to a *proportionate* share,
> not just any old calculated share. Hence, among four people, each
> one's pro rata share would be 25%--not 1% or 99% or 50%.
>
> In some specialized circumstances, pro rata amounts are not evenly
> divided according to the number of people, but rather by some other
> calculable criterion, such as the number of shares of a corporation
> owned by each person. But by default, if you speak of a pro rata
> distrubution among N people, you're referring to 1/Nth apiece, unless
> a substitute criterion (such as corportate shares) is specified or
> obvious.
>
Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It clarifies
the >50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make the regulation
rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to the application of
"pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the aircraft or number of
club members). If the FAA agrees with this usage then the matter is
settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the precedence of such as
free ferrying to be considered "compensation". ;-)

Regards,

Neil

[Jim Logajan]

"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It
> clarifies the >50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make
> the regulation rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to
> the application of "pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the
> aircraft or number of club members). If the FAA agrees with this usage
> then the matter is settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the
> precedence of such as free ferrying to be considered "compensation".

The following web page titled "Traps For The Unwary: Business Flying
And The 'Compensation Or Hire' Rule" discusses "pro rata" issues, among
others (such as the judicial invention of the "common purpose" test):

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 4:49 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
> Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It clarifies
> the >50% notion that I've been taught,

Sorry, I can't understand your reply well enough to tell whether you'e
agreeing with me. :) You say my interpretation "clarifies" the 50%
requirement, but in fact my interpretation is that there is no such
requirement.

> but it seems to make the regulation
> rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to the application of
> "pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the aircraft or number of
> club members).

I don't follow what your're saying. "Pro rata", by default, refers to
an even distribution among the participants. No other criterion is
specified in the relevant FAR, so it's just referring to an even
split. Shares of ownership or number of club members has no bearing.

>If the FAA agrees with this usage then the matter is
> settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the precedence [you mean 'precedents']
> such as free ferrying to be considered "compensation". ;-)

But how is that a precedent for the examples under discussion here?
Free flight time is indeed a valuable commodity. So if it's provided
in exchange for a service that one often pays a commercial pilot to
perform, then it is indeed compensation. And private pilots can't
receive compensation for flying, except under specified conditions.

But the point is that the cases under discussion here are indeed
covered by the specified exceptions (the cases are: choosing to fly,
rather than drive, to a business meeting; or flying with friends and
splitting the flight expenses evenly, i.e. pro rata). In the ferrying
case, the specified exceptions do *not* apply. So that case is no
precedent for situations where the specified exceptions *do* apply.

[Jim Macklin]

The 51% rule applies to homebuilt aircraft.




"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
| Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:
|
| > Neil Gould wrote:
| >> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:
| >>
| >>> Neil Gould wrote:
| >>>> Recently, BT > posted:
| >>>>
| >>>>>> As long as the total of reimbursements are less than 50% of the
| >>>>>> cost of the flight, it doesn't conflict with the FARs. OTOH, if
| >>>>>> someone has a bug up their posterior and wants to hassle you,
| >>>>>> they don't have to be right or interpret the FARs correctly.
| >>>>>>
| >>>>>> Neil
| >>>>>
| >>>>> As long as their total contribution is not more than their pro
| >>>>> rata share of the cost of the flight.
| >>>>> 50% if there is only one person going with you.. but the example
| >>>>> was three others.
| >>>>>
| >>>> Reading of 61.113 (c) is pretty clear:
| >>>>
| >>>> (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.
| >>>>
| >>>> So, the >50% figure *is* the "pro rata share" that the private
| >>>> pilot must pay *for the flight*. It doesn't matter how many
| >>>> contributors there are.
| >>>>
| >>>> Neil
| >>>
| >>> WHAT! If there are 4 the pro rata share of $100=$25. If there are
| >>> 100 the pro rata share is $1.
| >>>
| >>> pro ra·ta (pro ra't?, rä'-, rat'?)
| >>> adv.
| >>> In proportion, according to a factor that can be calculated exactly.
| >>>
| >> Your generalized application of the term "pro rata" does not account
| >> for the >50% requirement. For example, one could easily "calculate
| >> exactly" 20% of the cost of a flight, but if that is all a private
| >> pilot pays, then the FAA is likely to consider the other 80% paid
| >> compensation.
| >>
| >> As long as the private pilot must pay >50% of the cost of the flight,
| >> the sum of all other contributions can't exceed that amount. Now, if
| >> someone can support the notion that the private pilot doesn't have to
| >> pay >50% of the cost of a flight except under the remaining 61.113
| >> guidelines, that is a different matter. However, such a notion would
| >> make 61.113 (c) moot, so it seems a pretty remote possibility to me.
| >>
| >> Neil
| >> Who will continue to pay >50% of the cost of the flight.
| >
| > I just went back a reread all of 61.113. No where can I find the
| > phrase "greater than 50%" or even 50%. 61.113 (c) as written above is
| > the only part of the regulation that discusses splitting of costs of
| > flight among the passengers of a PPL piloted aircraft.
| >
| > Since there is no definition of "pro rata" in the FAR definition
| > section we must assume that pro rata is meant to be the common usage
| > which means, as I've written above, In proportion, according to a
| > factor that can be calculated exactly. In this case the factor that
| > can be calculated exactly is the number of passengers.
| >
| Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some additional
| parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even without the use
| of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee compliance with the FARs.
|
| > Now in the case of a plane rented wet it is easy (Rental price +
| > airport fees)/pax. If on the other hand I'm in my plane and I know
| > the cost of flying includes things like overhaul and maintenance
| > prepaids I have to deduct those before I do the math as the
| > regulation specifically says that I can only pro rata the fuel, oil,
| > airport expenditures and rental fee.
| >
| The cost of maintenance etc. is typically factored into a rental fee. But,
| I think the purpose of 61.113 is to set guidelines for what might
| constitute compensation. You and other travel to a work site, they can
| share the cost of fuel, oil, airport expenditures and rental fees. They
| can't pay you for the use of your plane and have you ferry them about, so
| the closer the financing looks like that's what is going on, the more
| likely one is to violating the FARs.
|
| > I'm curious where you get the >51% rule?
| >
| As has been mentioned by others, the >50% figure has been taught and
| tossed around for quite a while. I don't know if its origin is formal, was
| established by precedence, or just common practice. I would be happy to
| find out that my company could pay the entire cost of a flight without it
| becoming an issue of compensation, but that seems a long shot unless
| someone can show evidence that it is an acceptable practice. Do you know
| of any such evidence?
|
| Neil
|
|

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:42:22 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote:

>"Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It
>> clarifies the >50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make
>> the regulation rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to
>> the application of "pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the
>> aircraft or number of club members). If the FAA agrees with this usage
>> then the matter is settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the
>> precedence of such as free ferrying to be considered "compensation".
>
>The following web page titled "Traps For The Unwary: Business Flying
>And The 'Compensation Or Hire' Rule" discusses "pro rata" issues, among
>others (such as the judicial invention of the "common purpose" test):
>
>http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html

It's too bad that article does not discuss the premise of the OP's
situation -- that of an employee flying himself, and possibly some other
employees, to a business meeting which he, and they, would be attending
anyway; and being reimbursed for that trip.
--ron

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
Ron Rosenfeld > wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:42:22 -0000, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>
> >"Neil Gould" > wrote:
> >> Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It
> >> clarifies the >50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make
> >> the regulation rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to
> >> the application of "pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in the
> >> aircraft or number of club members). If the FAA agrees with this usage
> >> then the matter is settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the
> >> precedence of such as free ferrying to be considered "compensation".
> >
> >The following web page titled "Traps For The Unwary: Business Flying
> >And The 'Compensation Or Hire' Rule" discusses "pro rata" issues, among
> >others (such as the judicial invention of the "common purpose" test):
> >
> >http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html
>
> It's too bad that article does not discuss the premise of the OP's
> situation -- that of an employee flying himself, and possibly some other
> employees, to a business meeting which he, and they, would be attending
> anyway; and being reimbursed for that trip.
> --ron

Exactly. The problem here is the precise meaning of the word
"compensation" and whether or not compensation is distinct from
"reimbursement." There are two ways to look at the situation. One is
that I paid the entire cost of the flight and was reimbursed for a
travel expense. The second is that the company paid the entire cost of
the trip and therefore I did not meet the "pro-rata share" requirement.

rg

[Ron Garret]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Neil Gould wrote:
> > Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some
> > additional parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even
> > without the use of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee
> > compliance with the FARs.
> >
>
> Pro Rata means a specific thing. It is well defined in law and common usage.
> In 61.113 (c)the regulation is quite clear. A pilot may not pay less that
> his pro rata share of the allowable expenses.

There's still an ambiguity here. The obvious way to compute the
pro-rata share is to divide the total cost by the number of passengers.
But that is not the only reasonable way to do it. One could, for
example, assign a pro-rata share according to weight, so that heavier
passengers (or passengers with more bags) pay more than lighter ones.
One could likewise use height, on the theory that taller passengers use
more room inside the plane, or some combination of weight and height.
If all the passengers are owners of the company for which business is
being conducted they might choose to assign their pro-rata shares
according to their percentage ownership in the company. None of these
are unreasonable on their face, and none of them are specifically
excluded by the regs. But I wouldn't want to be the one defending any
of these theories against an FAA enforcement action.

rg

[Ron Rosenfeld]

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:00:49 -0800, Ron Garret >
wrote:

>Exactly. The problem here is the precise meaning of the word
>"compensation" and whether or not compensation is distinct from
>"reimbursement." There are two ways to look at the situation. One is
>that I paid the entire cost of the flight and was reimbursed for a
>travel expense. The second is that the company paid the entire cost of
>the trip and therefore I did not meet the "pro-rata share" requirement.

Fortunately, when I was flying on business -- which was solely to attend
meetings and the business had nothing to do with aviation -- the
"structure" was that the corporation leased the a/c and paid all of the
operating expenses. I would occasionally (rarely) carry a passenger to the
meeting, but the passenger would not be charged. In addition, and perhaps
critically so in view of the controversy regarding logging time as
compensation, I have a commercial certificate and, at the time I made these
flights, a 2nd class medical.

But when I made those flights, the FAA ruling concerning logging time as
compensation had not been promulgated, and the general opinion was that
those flights would have been legal even if I only had a private
certificate or a third class medical.
--ron

[Neil Gould]

Recently, > posted:

> On Nov 21, 4:49 pm, "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It
>> clarifies
>> the >50% notion that I've been taught,
>
> Sorry, I can't understand your reply well enough to tell whether you'e
> agreeing with me. :) You say my interpretation "clarifies" the 50%
> requirement, but in fact my interpretation is that there is no such
> requirement.
>
I am agreeing with you. The way I was taught was incomplete in its
application, and as such the intention of that FAR was apparently
misinterpreted to mean that the pilot must pay the largest portion of the
costs so that the reimbursements from other sources would not be
considered compensation. Your interpretation approaches the issue from a
perspective of default legal usage of the term "pro rata" (as you
correctly noted, the piece I was missing). For what it's worth, the >50%
notion isn't rare, possibly because few of those teaching or explaining
the FARs have legal backgrounds.

>> If the FAA agrees with this usage then the matter is
>> settled! However, I'm still skeptical, given the precedence [you
>> mean 'precedents'] such as free ferrying to be considered
>> "compensation". ;-)
>
> But how is that a precedent for the examples under discussion here?
> Free flight time is indeed a valuable commodity. So if it's provided
> in exchange for a service that one often pays a commercial pilot to
> perform, then it is indeed compensation. And private pilots can't
> receive compensation for flying, except under specified conditions.
>
> But the point is that the cases under discussion here are indeed
> covered by the specified exceptions (the cases are: choosing to fly,
> rather than drive, to a business meeting; or flying with friends and
> splitting the flight expenses evenly, i.e. pro rata). In the ferrying
> case, the specified exceptions do *not* apply. So that case is no
> precedent for situations where the specified exceptions *do* apply.
>
Thanks, again. I think your explanations address these issues well.

Regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Ron Garret > posted:

> In article >,
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>> Yes, but that usage renders 61.113 (c) meaningless without some
>>> additional parameters. One can calculate many things precisely, even
>>> without the use of a calculator. ;-) That might not guarantee
>>> compliance with the FARs.
>>>
>>
>> Pro Rata means a specific thing. It is well defined in law and
>> common usage. In 61.113 (c)the regulation is quite clear. A pilot
>> may not pay less that his pro rata share of the allowable expenses.
>
> There's still an ambiguity here. The obvious way to compute the
> pro-rata share is to divide the total cost by the number of
> passengers. But that is not the only reasonable way to do it. One
> could, for example, assign a pro-rata share according to weight, so
> that heavier passengers (or passengers with more bags) pay more than
> lighter ones. One could likewise use height, on the theory that
> taller passengers use more room inside the plane, or some combination
> of weight and height. If all the passengers are owners of the company
> for which business is being conducted they might choose to assign
> their pro-rata shares according to their percentage ownership in the
> company. None of these are unreasonable on their face, and none of
> them are specifically excluded by the regs. But I wouldn't want to
> be the one defending any of these theories against an FAA enforcement
> action.
>
I also saw such ambiguities, based on the dictionary definitions of the
terms rather than their basis in law. However, the explanations by
AirplaneSense in other parts of this thread have cleared up the matter for
me. I now see that Gig 601XL Builder's comments are in agreement with the
interpretations of AirplaneSense, but were a bit terse to be enlightening.

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jim Logajan > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote:
>> Thanks, and I understand the logic of your interpretation. It
>> clarifies the >50% notion that I've been taught, but it seems to make
>> the regulation rather pointless so long as there is some rationale to
>> the application of "pro rata" (for example, shares of ownership in
>> the aircraft or number of club members). If the FAA agrees with this
>> usage then the matter is settled! However, I'm still skeptical,
>> given the precedence of such as free ferrying to be considered
>> "compensation".
>
> The following web page titled "Traps For The Unwary: Business Flying
> And The 'Compensation Or Hire' Rule" discusses "pro rata" issues,
> among others (such as the judicial invention of the "common purpose"
> test):
>
> http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/traps.html
>
This article does seem to embody some of my earlier notions of the
interpretation of this FAR. However, I think AirplaneSense's explanation
is more concise and precise than the article.

Neil

[[email protected]]

On Nov 21, 9:00 pm, Ron Garret > wrote:
> Exactly. The problem here is the precise meaning of the word
> "compensation" and whether or not compensation is distinct from
> "reimbursement."

Can you explain why you think that matters here? If your travel
reimbursement is "compensation or hire", then you're fine because
61.113(b) permits a private pilot to fly for compensation or hire in
that situation. Alternatively, if (implausibly) the reimbursement is
*not* "compensation or hire", then you're still fine because in that
case, there is no violation of 61.113(a).

> There are two ways to look at the situation. One is
> that I paid the entire cost of the flight and was reimbursed for a
> travel expense.

Yup, or compensated. Makes no difference.

> The second is that the company paid the entire cost of
> the trip and therefore I did not meet the "pro-rata share" requirement.

The pro rata requirement is irrelevant here. It's in a different
clause (61.113(c)) and spells out a different exception to the no-
compensation rule.

It's true that there's a slight ambiguity in the form of the clauses
(though it has nothing to do with "compensation" vs. "reimbursement").
As written, it might seem that 61.113(c) could apply simultaneously
with 61.113(b), forcing you to pay a pro rata share of the business
flight. But common sense easily resolves that ambiguity. The FAA can't
intend both clauses to apply to a business flight, because if they
did, then your pro rata share if there were *no* passengers would
be100%. Therefore, you'd be allowed to receive compensation *only if
you carried passengers*, which is exactly the opposite of the
constraint that the FAA is trying to impose (they don't want private
pilots to carry passengers for compensation; 61.113(b)(2) says so).

So there's really no ambiguity. Compensation is permitted in that
situation (unless you're being paid *extra* to take passengers along;
that would violate 61.113(b)(2)).

[Ron Garret]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Nov 21, 9:00 pm, Ron Garret > wrote:
> > Exactly. The problem here is the precise meaning of the word
> > "compensation" and whether or not compensation is distinct from
> > "reimbursement."
>
> Can you explain why you think that matters here? If your travel
> reimbursement is "compensation or hire", then you're fine because
> 61.113(b) permits a private pilot to fly for compensation or hire in
> that situation.

Hm, maybe the word I should be getting hung up on is "incidental."

> It's true that there's a slight ambiguity in the form of the clauses
> (though it has nothing to do with "compensation" vs. "reimbursement").
> As written, it might seem that 61.113(c) could apply simultaneously
> with 61.113(b), forcing you to pay a pro rata share of the business
> flight.

Yes, that's what was running through my mind.

> But common sense easily resolves that ambiguity. The FAA can't
> intend both clauses to apply to a business flight, because if they
> did, then your pro rata share if there were *no* passengers would
> be100%. Therefore, you'd be allowed to receive compensation *only if
> you carried passengers*, which is exactly the opposite of the
> constraint that the FAA is trying to impose (they don't want private
> pilots to carry passengers for compensation; 61.113(b)(2) says so).

Heh, good point.

rg

[[email protected]]

On Nov 23, 2:12 am, Ron Garret > wrote:
> Hm, maybe the word I should be getting hung up on is "incidental."

The test I use is: would an honest description of your job
responsibilities include piloting? If not, then the flying is
incidental to your job. That rule may not properly categorize a few
obscure, borderline cases. But the case under discussion--where you
choose to fly, rather than drive, to a business meeting--isn't
borderline. On the contrary, it's literally the textbook case of a
business flight that's incidental to one's job. If that didn't count
as incidental, nothing would

[Ron Garret]

In article
>,
wrote:

> On Nov 23, 2:12 am, Ron Garret > wrote:
> > Hm, maybe the word I should be getting hung up on is "incidental."
>
> The test I use is: would an honest description of your job
> responsibilities include piloting? If not, then the flying is
> incidental to your job. That rule may not properly categorize a few
> obscure, borderline cases. But the case under discussion--where you
> choose to fly, rather than drive, to a business meeting--isn't
> borderline. On the contrary, it's literally the textbook case of a
> business flight that's incidental to one's job. If that didn't count
> as incidental, nothing would

That works for me. Thanks!

rg