61.113 and expense reimbursements

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

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.

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".

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

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

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).

"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

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

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

"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