61.113 and expense reimbursements

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