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
|
|