"grubertm" wrote in message
oups.com...
Your company
can rent you the airplane and pay your normal salary or hourly wage on
your
trip. HOWEVER, you cobbed the system up by saying "pilot bonus". Now
you
ARE being employed as a pilot and without a commercial certificate, you
can't do that.

So 100% reimbursement for operating expenses would be okay, but more
than 100% is not ?
61.113b states that a private pilot may act as PIC for compensation or
hire in connection with a business as long as the flight is only
incidental to that business. Where does it define compensation to be
limited to operating expenses ? Your interpretation makes sense, but I
don't see any legal restrictions on the amount/type of compensation in
61.113b.

Now let's say the CEO wants to go to that trade show as well. He would
be a passenger and now 61.113b2 applies since he is a passenger and
therefore I may not collect any money at all, thus have to pay 100% of
operating expenses myself.

Nope, same argument. You are not being paid to fly the CEO to the widget
show. The company can pick up the entire cost of the airplane and your
normal widgetworker salary while on the trip.

Why ? The 61.113b excpetion only applies if both 61.113.b.1 and
61.113.b.2 are met. If we consider the CEO to be a passenger then
61.113.b.2 is not met, thus 61.113.b is not applicable any more.
Therefore the PIC would have to either pay 100% or 50% depending on
whether 61.113.c apply.

This is the part thats baffeling.


- Marco