61.113 and expense reimbursements

"Ron Garret" wrote in message
...
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?


Hi Ron,

You might want to reference the thread titled "Ferry flight a commercial
op?" that began last week on 11/13, if you haven't already.

If you follow all the references given, it would seem your situation, and
most any other, has been denied at one time or the other by the FAA.
Granted, by the wording of the FARs most would interpret them to allow your
activity. But actual historical decisions tell another story.

Let's cut through the horse****.

I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let that
go for the moment).

My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS mileage
(48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle. Vehicle is
automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I choose.

The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many other
employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5 cents a mile.

I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to the
conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a company
employee while I am at the conference.

I get home without incident.

I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and multiply
it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case closed.

I have an accident on the way to or the way from the conference. Let the
lawyers sort it out. I was on company time; let the company lawyers decide
fault and such.

The FARs have relatively little to do with the process. You aren't being
paid to fly; you are being recompensated for getting yourself to the
conference and participating.

Then again, I've only been doing this for forty years, but what do I know?

Jim




--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

RST Engineering wrote:
Let's cut through the horse****.

I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let
that go for the moment).

My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS
mileage (48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle. Vehicle is
automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I
choose.
The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many other
employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5 cents a
mile.
I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to
the conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a
company employee while I am at the conference.

I get home without incident.

I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and
multiply it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case
closed.

Let's modify that some and see if it would still be FAA legal.

Gerry, Kelly and same get the same 48.5c/mile from the company and give it
to you.

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

RST Engineering wrote:
Let's cut through the horse****.

I'm a private pilot (no, I'm a commercial pilot, CFI, A&P, IA but let
that go for the moment).

My company sends me to a conference. The company policy pays IRS
mileage (48.5c a mile) for me to get there by private vehicle.
Vehicle is automobile, wagon train, muleback, or any other method I
choose.
The company policy says that I can go by myself or carry as many
other employees as I wish in my private vehicle for the same 48.5
cents a mile.
I load up Gerry, Kelly, Sam and myself into the airplane and fly to
the conference. I'm not paid to get to the conference, just be a
company employee while I am at the conference.

I get home without incident.

I bill the company for what would have been automobile mileage and
multiply it by 48.5 cents a mile and submit it. Company pays. Case
closed.

Let's modify that some and see if it would still be FAA legal.

Gerry, Kelly and same get the same 48.5c/mile from the company and
give it to you.

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

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:38:57 -0800, 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

No.

You meet the requirements of 61.113(b)
--ron

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.

B

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

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.

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.

In article ,
"Neil Gould" wrote:

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.

where is this "50%" requirement?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)