61.113 question

[azure]

This is a <cough> hypothetical question.

Someone who happens to be a private pilot and airplane owner is invited to an out-of-state location for a job interview. The company offers to reimburse the applicant for travel expenses. The applicant decides to fly in their own airplane. Company isn't sure how to work the reimbursement but offers the standard federal mileage rate based on distance. Since this is $0.56/statute mile, it clearly works out to considerably less than the actual operating expense, even considering fuel alone. Is the pilot legal to accept reimbursement on these terms? Would pilot be legal to accept full reimbursement for operating expenses?

The question seems to hinge on what constitutes "acting as PIC for compensation or for hire". Clearly company is not hiring pilot to fly and pilot has an interest in attending the interview, so I'm not sure this is flying FOR compensation either. Obviously it doesn't fall under any of the specifically allowed provisions either, however, so if the FAA thinks differently on that point (and since they're the FAA, they very well might) it's verboten.

It seems like gray area to me. Anyone know for sure?

 

[Jim Logajan]

If it was me, I'd consider the flight covered under 61.113(b). A job interview is, IMHO, connected with employment within the meaning of term used in that paragraph. And the flight is incidental to the employment.

 

[Jim Logajan]

As long as you can provide that you were not compensated more than the actual operating costs (I.e fuel and oil), you're good.

I can see nothing in 61.113(b) that limits compensation to operating costs. I think you're mixing in the limitation of 61.113(c) which only applies when passengers are involved. A lone pilot is never a passenger. If a pilot were considered a passenger, then 61.113(b) could never be applied to any flight. It would be void of applicability.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I vote the flight is illegal. The OP is not an employee of company X and the flight is not an extension of his employment. Nor is the flight for the OP's business.

The OP need not be an employee of the entity doing the compensation. They can be self employed salesperson. The criteria is that the flight is in connection with any sort of business or employment. A job interview is a business meeting, and the (shudder) chief counsel has opined about such meetings:
"...in this scenario, where you are only transporting yourself to the business meeting, you may be compensated for the expense of the flight. See 14 C.F.R. § 61.113(b)."

How so? Isn't the OP in the business of securing employment?

Agreed. But...

I don't see why the OP can't carry a passenger, say, an agent. Or the prospective employer's agent, too, on the flip-flop to iron out the details with the agent after the OP returns home for an important meeting. Nothing in 61.113(b) against that I can see.

I think the part highlighted in red rules out using the exception in paragraph (b), though the pro-rata option would presumably be available since there is a common purpose involved:

(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:

(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment; and

(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

 

[Jim Logajan]

From an FAA perspective, this is perfectly fine as long as the amount paid does not exceed the cost of the flight.

This part is incorrect. It would also be perfectly fine with the FAA if the amount exceeded the cost of the flight. You've added a qualifier to paragraph (b) that doesn't exist in either the regulation or any interpretation or ruling that I'm aware of.

For example, consider a different scenario also covered by paragraph (b): A self-employed consultant who is a private pilot negotiates some amount $X to go to a client to render a service. The consultant flies to the client site by private aircraft, performs the service and is eventually paid $X. Your absurd interpretation would not allow X to be larger than the cost of the flight. Where and how you came up with such a limit is unclear to me. I can't even see how it comes into play in any part of 61.113.

 

[Jim Logajan]

Chevron deference makes it an uphill fight.

I can only assume that I must be on JeffDG's ignore list for my past posts on Chevron deference to have missed his attention:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1411235&post1411235