![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is expense of a new sailplane the reason? | Nolaminar | Soaring | 0 | January 7th 05 03:40 PM |
expense analysis | Rosspilot | Owning | 12 | August 25th 03 03:34 AM |