Pilot In Command Limitations of 61.113

[455 Bravo Uniform]

I am private pilot in training. With regards to 61.113-

I work for a major corporation:
-I think I can use a rental or personal plane to travel on company business, correct? Normally I would use a personal vehicle, rental car, or commercial airline.
-Can I take coworkers with me?
-Can I fully expense certain parts of the trip (rental rate, fuel, oil)?

And a somewhat related question on 61.113 - do I have to be a commercial pilot to do Angel Flight or pet/animal transport for charity?

 

[EdFred]

Yes - but most companies are so aviation-phobic they probably won't allow you to.
Yes - company policy notwithstanding.
You used to be able to until some dumbass wrote the chief counsel and that dumb **** McPherson wrote an opinion saying you can't if you take coworkers with you - oh then she bailed on the FAA and took a job with a firm to argue that her own opinion was wrong. Stupid ****.
You can write them off if alone.

You do not need to be commercial to do Angel Flight or pet rescue, but each organization has their own requirements that vary.

 

[denverpilot]

Oh boy... here it goes...

I'll give you a summary before it gets nuts...

Personal plane on company business: Fine, but many employers don't like it.
Rental plane on company business: Fine, check your rental agreement and insurance, and many employers don't like it.

Adding passengers: Adds complexity. Depends on how reimbursement is done, and whether or not you're truly sharing expenses, etc.

More fun:

Search the board for "mangiamele" and you'll find info on a controversial FAA decision about whether gaining future favors is "compensation" and requires a Commercial certificate.

Also keep in mind FAA considers someone paying your flight time "compensation" in most of their legal cases, and that's going to lead to weirdness for "reimbursement"...

 

[EdFred]

Type less Nate, I beat ya to it. Lol

 

[denverpilot]

Type less Nate, I beat ya to it. Lol

I figured some azz would get all grumpy around here if I didn't cover at LEAST those items. LOL...

But I do appreciate, enjoy, and agree with your assessment of that retard-lawyer's behavior, which I left out.

 

[455 Bravo Uniform]

Thanks guys. Nothing seems as clear cut as it would seem on first reading.

Employer will likely not like it, but have not dug in on that yet.

 

[flyingron]

I could fly myself on business for the first 35 years of my career. Then we got bought out by a company that forbids us from flying small aircraft on company business. They're dangerous you know...they make a large number of them and their engines and propellers: Cessna, Bell, Lycoming, Macaulay, etc...

 

[ibgarrett]

I spoke to a guy several years ago that worked it out so he used the standard mileage reimbursement process one would use driving a car for travel reimbursement while flying. Granted it's not a 1:1 cost reimbursement, but it did offset the cost some and avoided raising eyebrows with the bean counters.

I haven't exercised it as I don't travel for work - but I thought it was an interesting concept.

 

[Jaybird180]

Yes - but most companies are so aviation-phobic they probably won't allow you to.
Yes - company policy notwithstanding.
You used to be able to until some dumbass wrote the chief counsel and that dumb **** McPherson wrote an opinion saying you can't if you take coworkers with you - oh then she bailed on the FAA and took a job with a firm to argue that her own opinion was wrong. Stupid ****.
You can write them off if alone.

You do not need to be commercial to do Angel Flight or pet rescue, but each organization has their own requirements that vary.

I could easily see how that could happen. FAA is a government bureaucracy just like all the others inside the beltway. It's quite possible that in her gov't job she was given the parameters of information she was allowed to consider and the answer ultimately must be decided on those factors alone.
...or...
she was given the final result of what opinion the wanted to see on it
...then..
when she left she was able to consider other factors
...or...
she truly realized what a bonehead she'd been and wanted to do a "UP YOURS" to her former FAA bosses.

 

[denverpilot]

...she truly realized what a bonehead she'd been ...

I highly doubt that. Seen the size of the egos of DC lawyers? They own it.

 

[Brad Z]

You used to be able to until some dumbass wrote the chief counsel and that dumb **** McPherson wrote an opinion saying you can't if you take coworkers with you - oh then she bailed on the FAA and took a job with a firm to argue that her own opinion was wrong. Stupid ****.
You can write them off if alone.

I find it quaint that folks here actually think the Assiatant chief counsel attorney sat down and penned the opinion with no other input from the agency.

 

[EdFred]

I find it quaint that folks here actually think the Assiatant chief counsel attorney sat down and penned the opinion with no other input from the agency.

When one CC opinion overrules a previous one, I'm certain that the one writing the opinion has quite a bit of influence.

 

[dtuuri]

I find it quaint that folks here actually think the Assiatant chief counsel attorney sat down and penned the opinion with no other input from the agency.

From my experience with the quality of input from the agency's departments enlisted to brief the new-hire attorney on lost comm rules, I'd say it's the "blind leading the blind" and signed off on by the same someone here. (And, no, I didn't ask the Chief Counsel to explain the rule, I asked the department that had most recently changed the rule, ATO. They bounced it to the Chief Counsel's office rather than just say what they wanted.)

dtuuri

 

[denverpilot]

From my experience with the quality of input from the agency's departments enlisted to brief the new-hire attorney on lost comm rules, I'd say it's the "blind leading the blind" and signed off on by the same someone here. (And, no, I didn't ask the Chief Counsel to explain the rule, I asked the department that had most recently changed the rule, ATO. They bounced it to the Chief Counsel's office rather than just say what they wanted.)



dtuuri

Probably policy to do so. Anything that might have a legal impact... People aren't empowered to answer for anything nowadays. Doesn't really matter if they're the actual expert or not.

 

[Bman.]

I am going to dig up this thread because I am getting dizzy reading myself into circles on 61.113. I am a newly minted PPL pilot and stretching my wings a bit and trying to fly when I can. I want to make sure I play by the rules and don't need to be caught off guard. I know that I can't fly 'compensation for hire' and know that compensation is just about everything and anything I can imagine now or even later. So, if i want to fly for business under section 61.113 (b) - to get from point A to point B, completely incidental to my primary business (I could drive my car, fly commercial, walk..):

Scenario A) I have a meeting 300 miles away. Can I fly my own plane and be reimbursed by my employer OR client for the rental & fuel expenses incurred provided I am not carrying passengers or property for compensation for hire? I see this no differently than if I took my personal car and collecting reimbursement expenses for the vehicle - but it doesn't matter how I see it. I just want to make sure I understand correctly 61.113 (b). I am the sole occupant, PIC and not carrying passengers. Can the reimbursement rate be what ever I choose or the client chooses? I don't see anywhere that dictates a specific reimbursement rate. Does it matter if it's the client that reimburses me or the client?

Scenario B) Now, say I take a fellow employee with me also needing to attend this meeting. We both need to go to this meeting and have a bona-fide reason to go to this common destination. Assuming company policy was ok with this private GA travel on the company clock, this is still acceptable but no reimbursement can be made by the company or client (third party) since there is a "passenger" on board - regardless of the need to also be at the meeting. See Mangiamel 2009 ruling:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../mangiamele - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
It reads to me that I can take employees but no reimbursement can be collected from any third party (employer or client). Technically I could split the incurred operating expenses with the employee but who would want to do that?.

Scenario C) Let's go one step further. Say we need to take this same trip to a business meeting but this time the client is tired of seeing me pass him overhead en route to the same meeting and wants to come along as a passenger on the next meeting. Things get more complex. Now we have a common meeting and destination but he/she is sitting in the plane. We would now split the expense fuel, rental, tie-down with me paying my pro-rata share. (61.113 (c)). I could take him or leave him but we both need to go to the same meeting. The difference now, the client is sitting in the plane instead of the highway. If I understand correctly, we both sit in the meeting, conduct business, fly home and split the costs (fuel, rental) equally.

What have I missed (except for probably everything)? It would seem that it would benefit the client (who has hired me for a primary business not associated with aviation at all) to ride with me as a passenger to this common business meeting destination and everyone pay their pro-rata share versus the client driving themselves and me flying solo and collecting reimbursement for full rental / fuel expenses incurred. This is where I am confused - so I can fly to a common destination with the client do pro-rate share of expenses but take an employee required at this meeting and there can not be any reimbursement.

I have not conducted any of these scenarios. However, I know the question is going to come up in the office and I want to be prepared with the correct answers as to what can be done and not done.

What I have been reading:

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html
http://studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?39978-Flight-Cost-Reimbursement
http://www.askacfi.com/7778/flying-my-business-partner-and-myself-to-client-meetings.htm
https://allaboutairplanes.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/private-pilot-flight-reimbursement-explained/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2010/lamb-2 - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

Thanks for the input and direction. For now, scenario A seems the safest bet.
Benjamin

 

[Palmpilot]

...or...
she truly realized what a bonehead she'd been and wanted to do a "UP YOURS" to her former FAA bosses.

More likely, IMO, is that lawyers in private practice are hired to advocate for their CLIENT'S position, not their own.

[OOPS! Missed that it's a necrothread! ]

 

[Bman.]

More likely, IMO, is that lawyers in private practice are hired to advocate for their CLIENT'S position, not their own.

[OOPS! Missed that it's a necrothread! ]

Yeah - sorry about that. Diggin up the dead here. The interpretations caught my attention while searching so I brought it back up.

 

[Palmpilot]

No problem. Necroposting doesn't bug me like it does some people.

 

[Brad Z]

I am going to dig up this thread because I am getting dizzy reading myself into circles on 61.113. I am a newly minted PPL pilot and stretching my wings a bit and trying to fly when I can. I want to make sure I play by the rules and don't need to be caught off guard. I know that I can't fly 'compensation for hire' and know that compensation is just about everything and anything I can imagine now or even later. So, if i want to fly for business under section 61.113 (b) - to get from point A to point B, completely incidental to my primary business (I could drive my car, fly commercial, walk..):

Scenario A) I have a meeting 300 miles away. Can I fly my own plane and be reimbursed by my employer OR client for the rental & fuel expenses incurred provided I am not carrying passengers or property for compensation for hire? I see this no differently than if I took my personal car and collecting reimbursement expenses for the vehicle - but it doesn't matter how I see it. I just want to make sure I understand correctly 61.113 (b). I am the sole occupant, PIC and not carrying passengers. Can the reimbursement rate be what ever I choose or the client chooses? I don't see anywhere that dictates a specific reimbursement rate. Does it matter if it's the client that reimburses me or the client?

Scenario B) Now, say I take a fellow employee with me also needing to attend this meeting. We both need to go to this meeting and have a bona-fide reason to go to this common destination. Assuming company policy was ok with this private GA travel on the company clock, this is still acceptable but no reimbursement can be made by the company or client (third party) since there is a "passenger" on board - regardless of the need to also be at the meeting. See Mangiamel 2009 ruling:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2009/mangiamele - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf
It reads to me that I can take employees but no reimbursement can be collected from any third party (employer or client). Technically I could split the incurred operating expenses with the employee but who would want to do that?.

Scenario C) Let's go one step further. Say we need to take this same trip to a business meeting but this time the client is tired of seeing me pass him overhead en route to the same meeting and wants to come along as a passenger on the next meeting. Things get more complex. Now we have a common meeting and destination but he/she is sitting in the plane. We would now split the expense fuel, rental, tie-down with me paying my pro-rata share. (61.113 (c)). I could take him or leave him but we both need to go to the same meeting. The difference now, the client is sitting in the plane instead of the highway. If I understand correctly, we both sit in the meeting, conduct business, fly home and split the costs (fuel, rental) equally.

What have I missed (except for probably everything)? It would seem that it would benefit the client (who has hired me for a primary business not associated with aviation at all) to ride with me as a passenger to this common business meeting destination and everyone pay their pro-rata share versus the client driving themselves and me flying solo and collecting reimbursement for full rental / fuel expenses incurred. This is where I am confused - so I can fly to a common destination with the client do pro-rate share of expenses but take an employee required at this meeting and there can not be any reimbursement.

I have not conducted any of these scenarios. However, I know the question is going to come up in the office and I want to be prepared with the correct answers as to what can be done and not done.

What I have been reading:

http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/186346-1.html
http://studentpilot.com/interact/forum/showthread.php?39978-Flight-Cost-Reimbursement
http://www.askacfi.com/7778/flying-my-business-partner-and-myself-to-client-meetings.htm
https://allaboutairplanes.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/private-pilot-flight-reimbursement-explained/
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/interpretations/data/interps/2010/lamb-2 - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

Thanks for the input and direction. For now, scenario A seems the safest bet.
Benjamin

Read this FAA legal interpretation, specifically the second question:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../mangiamele - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf

 

[RotorDude]

Do what you want within reason. Your employer is the key factor. Find an employer that appreciates GA, ideally with a pilot CEO or owner. Then, instead of relying on CC letters, look at actual enforcement actions as your guideline, because those get a reality check (i.e. vetted by the legal system).
Also, bear in mind the IRS also plays a role here, since they determine what is acceptable from their own independent perspective, so that's also a consideration, e.g. for the incidental costs the company does not pay that you want to write off as business expenses.
Bottom line, like anything in aviation, you are the PIC, so carefully research the "legal weather" before embarking on the flight and charging any costs as business expenses. But if you do it properly, you'll be fine.
And be sure to get an IR if you fly on business!

 

[jsstevens]

[snip]
Thanks for the input and direction. For now, scenario A seems the safest bet.
Benjamin

Your interpretation is correct as I understand it. If you are by yourself you can be reimbursed for the actual direct costs. If you are carrying a coworker, they can pay you for their pro-rata share (and, somewhat ironically, be reimbursed for that cost) but you cannot be reimbursed at all. If you are carrying a client/customer, again they can pay for their pro-rata share, but you cannot be reimbursed at all.

Speaking purely from the FAA side of the equation, of course. IRS and employer are entirely different cans of worms.

John