A question...

[MidlifeFlyer]

I one time said that the easiest way to see if you're allowed to do it or not is "can i possibly get anything out of this flight other than the pure enjoyment of the flight?" if the answer is yes, you can't do it. I was rebuffed for that statement, but it seems I wasn't far off....

You weren't. The other way is when, understanding the regs even a little, you say, "well, if I do it this way, I'll be able to make it work."

 

[msmspilot]

You weren't. The other way is when, understanding the regs even a little, you say, "well, if I do it this way, I'll be able to make it work."

It's gotten on the ridiculous side. I understand the need for 121 and 135, but holy crap.

"I'm using an airplane, and it's making money. Is that legal?"

"no, son, and I'm afraid you're probably violating a law of nature as well."

 

[msmspilot]

Sorry to drag this back up but here's a new one.

I've sometimes said that although the FAA gives lip service to the concept of "private carriage" I'd never seen a situation in which the FAA applied it to avoid the need for an operator certificate.

So here's one where a commercial pilot just wants to know if it's okay to rent a Bonanza to deliver his employer's stuff once in a while.

Sure, says the Chief Counsel - so long as he gets a Part 135 certificate as an "on demand" carrier.

(You can't make this stuff up)

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../interpretations/data/interps/2010/Wagner.pdf

Ok, I'll admit that I was lazy earlier and didn't read the letter in detail. I have gone back and done so.

"Thus, compensation for the noncommon carriage or private flights you propose would exist in two forms: First, your employer would reimburse the expenses associated with the flights to you."

Seriously!?!?! I thought that's why you got a commercial certificate to start with?

We do have a former enforcement (now safety) guy at the local FSDO that has stated that you can't do anything with a commercial certificate that you can't do with a private. Maybe he was right.

 

[bLizZuE]

Can a private pilot whos primary job is a structural engineer fly the company plane with other engineers on board to a far off work site?

I looked at 61.113 and got the following:

(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.

No.

 

[msmspilot]

No.

Why would you consider those passengers to be flown "for compensation or hire"? If you go with the test for "is this flight incidental to business?" for yourself, why would carrying a passenger who is also incidental to business be carrying a passenger for compensation or hire?

I know what the FAA letter says, but it doesn't make sense to me this time.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

We do have a former enforcement (now safety) guy at the local FSDO that has stated that you can't do anything with a commercial certificate that you can't do with a private. Maybe he was right.

There are some. For example, if the company in that letter owner or leased the airplane, the pilot could be paid for the flying - straight Part 91 - but only if he is a commercial pilot; a private pilot could not be paid for the same flight (arguably couln't even get free flight time).

Then there's the punch-list of exceptions in 119.3 - jobs for which you need to have a commercial pilot certificate but not a commercial operator certificate.

It does get pretty complicated but there is a principle you can start with as a paradigm for helping to understand this stuff:

There are two basic questions that need to be asked when looking at these kinds of questions.

1. Does the operation require a commercial pilot certificate?
2. Does the operation require a commercial operator certificate?

We tend to run them together but they are really asking very different questions.

 

[msmspilot]

There are some. For example, if the company in that letter owner or leased the airplane, the pilot could be paid for the flying - straight Part 91 - but only if he is a commercial pilot; a private pilot could not be paid for the same flight (arguably couln't even get free flight time).

Then there's the punch-list of exceptions in 119.3 - jobs for which you need to have a commercial pilot certificate but not a commercial operator certificate.

It does get pretty complicated but there is a principle you can start with as a paradigm for helping to understand this stuff:

There are two basic questions that need to be asked when looking at these kinds of questions.

1. Does the operation require a commercial pilot certificate?
2. Does the operation require a commercial operator certificate?

We tend to run them together but they are really asking very different questions.

Sorry, should have put a :rollseyes: or a or a or something. I'm aware of the differences, but sometimes I let my "glass half empty" side out.

I'm usually a "glass is too big" type.

 

[bLizZuE]

Why would you consider those passengers to be flown "for compensation or hire"? If you go with the test for "is this flight incidental to business?" for yourself, why would carrying a passenger who is also incidental to business be carrying a passenger for compensation or hire?

I know what the FAA letter says, but it doesn't make sense to me this time.

Because in one sentence it says:

A private pilot may, for compensation or hire

IF

The flight is only incidental to that business or employment

AND

The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire

I can pay you to fly as an engineer to some place to do work as an engineer. However I can not pay you as an engineer to fly to some place to do work with passengers.

So if you're my employee, and I'm paying you to go to work somewhere, as a private pilot it's perfectly legal; Provided you do not carry passengers or property.

 

[msmspilot]

I can pay you to fly as an engineer to some place to do work as an engineer. However I can not pay you as an engineer to fly to some place to do work with passengers.

So if you're my employee, and I'm paying you to go to work somewhere, as a private pilot it's perfectly legal; Provided you do not carry passengers or property.

But if it's a coworker who also needs to go to the same location I need to go, I'm not carrying the passenger for hire. I'm carrying a passenger, but not being paid for the carrying of that passenger (which the first part of the regulation seems to allow).

I'm obviously not smart enough for this one. The reg says you can receive compensation as a private pilot, but you may not carry passengers or property for compensation. ok. So if I carry the tools my employer owns to do my job, did I just carry property for hire? If not, then why is a coworker who is required to do the job a passenger I carried for hire?

 

[bLizZuE]

Because if he is your co-worker, then I assume you're getting paid.

If you're getting paid, you can't take passengers. Period.

Just because your coworker is required for the job, doesn't mean he isn't a passenger.

I can pay you to go somewhere to do something incidental to my business.

I can not pay you to go somewhere to deliver something incidental to my business.

I can not pay you to go somewhere with someone that is incidental to my business.

Private pilots can not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

But if it's a coworker who also needs to go to the same location I need to go, I'm not carrying the passenger for hire. I'm carrying a passenger, but not being paid for the carrying of that passenger (which the first part of the regulation seems to allow).

I'm obviously not smart enough for this one. The reg says you can receive compensation as a private pilot, but you may not carry passengers or property for compensation. ok. So if I carry the tools my employer owns to do my job, did I just carry property for hire? If not, then why is a coworker who is required to do the job a passenger I carried for hire?

Because the FAA is very protective of the non-flying public on the one hand and of pilots and organizations that have paid their dues and done their training and met higher standards on the other.

So the rules tend to err on putting anything close on the "wrong" side of the fence. So you get rules like, to share expenses you need a common purpose for the trip with your passengers, that "incidental" ends where bring someone along enters the picture.

Yeah, the FAA can sometimes go overboard with this stuff. And the recent no co-worker opinion has a lot of problems with the analysis. But that's IMO pretty much the "why" of it. My WAG is that the FAA didn't want to have to deal with the issue of whether the coworkers also had a common purpose and was concerned that we'd end up with small companies with a de facto company pilot that was a private pilot and a lot of phony "common purposes."

 

[msmspilot]

Because if he is your co-worker, then I assume you're getting paid.

If you're getting paid, you can't take passengers. Period.

Just because your coworker is required for the job, doesn't mean he isn't a passenger.

I can pay you to go somewhere to do something incidental to my business.

I can not pay you to go somewhere to deliver something incidental to my business.

I can not pay you to go somewhere with someone that is incidental to my business.

Private pilots can not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire.

Ok, you never answered my question. If I am carrying a piece of paper that I have to have to do my job, is that property? If that piece of paper is property, and I am compensated for the flight, did I just carry property for hire?

If that situation is ok, when the regulation clearly says I may not carry property for compensation or hire, then why can I not carry a coworker who is also necessary for the job I'm going to do?

If I can't carry that piece of paper (it is property that isn't mine, that I'm carrying while being compensated to fly), then HOW THE HELL IS FLYING USEFUL? I can't take my tools to do my job, why would I fly?

If you go back to your reading comprehension, the part of the regulation you're talking about says "may not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." Maybe it's my poor education talking, but I read that as "I cannot receive compensation or have my sole job function be for the purpose of carrying passengers or property." If I'm flying anyway, because that's how I choose to attend a meeting, and I have other coworkers who need to go to that same meeting, I'm not being reimbursed for the purpose of carrying the coworkers. I'm being reimbursed for going to the meeting.

Because the FAA is very protective of the non-flying public on the one hand and of pilots and organizations that have paid their dues and done their training and met higher standards on the other.

So the rules tend to err on putting anything close on the "wrong" side of the fence. So you get rules like, to share expenses you need a common purpose for the trip with your passengers, that "incidental" ends where bring someone along enters the picture.

Yeah, the FAA can sometimes go overboard with this stuff. And the recent no co-worker opinion has a lot of problems with the analysis. But that's IMO pretty much the "why" of it. My WAG is that the FAA didn't want to have to deal with the issue of whether the coworkers also had a common purpose and was concerned that we'd end up with small companies with a de facto company pilot that was a private pilot and a lot of phony "common purposes."

I understand that logic. But it still doesn't answer my question. If I can carry equipment (that I personally am going to need to do the job my employer hired me to do) then how am I not violating the "carry property for compensation or hire" clause? Since that clause is in the same sentence as the passenger part, if I can carry the equipment, how can you figure that I can't carry passengers.

I understand what you're saying about the FAA protecting the flying public. But in this case, if you go with the FAA's interpretation, you would also be forced to conclude that you couldn't carry so much as a pen from your employer when you went on a flight incidental to your business.


One other thing: I read the letter. I understand the FAA's position on this (even if I don't understand how they got there). I would certainly advise anyone to not take part in activities such as those being discussed here until we get some clarification or change from the FAA. I still don't understand this change in interpretation.

 

[bLizZuE]

Ok, you never answered my question. If I am carrying a piece of paper that I have to have to do my job, is that property? If that piece of paper is property, and I am compensated for the flight, did I just carry property for hire?

If you carry property for the sole purpose of carring property, you are in violation of 61.113

If that situation is ok, when the regulation clearly says I may not carry property for compensation or hire, then why can I not carry a coworker who is also necessary for the job I'm going to do?

It doesn't matter if the co-worker is neccessary or not. The FAA doesn't care that you require two assistants to do your job. If you're getting re-imbursed for the flight, or otherwise compensated, you can not carry passengers.

If I can't carry that piece of paper (it is property that isn't mine, that I'm carrying while being compensated to fly), then HOW THE HELL IS FLYING USEFUL? I can't take my tools to do my job, why would I fly?

Taking your tools is ok, taking someone elses tools is not.

If you go back to your reading comprehension, the part of the regulation you're talking about says "may not carry passengers or property for compensation or hire." Maybe it's my poor education talking, but I read that as "I cannot receive compensation or have my sole job function be for the purpose of carrying passengers or property." If I'm flying anyway, because that's how I choose to attend a meeting, and I have other coworkers who need to go to that same meeting, I'm not being reimbursed for the purpose of carrying the coworkers. I'm being reimbursed for going to the meeting.

Again, it doesn't matter why you're going, or who is required. If you are being reimbursed or otherwise compensated, you may not carry passengers.

I understand that logic. But it still doesn't answer my question. If I can carry equipment (that I personally am going to need to do the job my employer hired me to do) then how am I not violating the "carry property for compensation or hire" clause? Since that clause is in the same sentence as the passenger part, if I can carry the equipment, how can you figure that I can't carry passengers.

If it is your equipment, it's ok. If you are transporting someone elses equipment, it's not. You're a cargo pilot at that point.

I understand what you're saying about the FAA protecting the flying public. But in this case, if you go with the FAA's interpretation, you would also be forced to conclude that you couldn't carry so much as a pen from your employer when you went on a flight incidental to your business.

Within reason. Does the pen belong to you? Are you delivering the pen?

One other thing: I read the letter. I understand the FAA's position on this (even if I don't understand how they got there). I would certainly advise anyone to not take part in activities such as those being discussed here until we get some clarification or change from the FAA. I still don't understand this change in interpretation.

It ultimately boils down to this.

The FAA does not want private pilots acting as PIC while transporting goods or passengers, and doing so for compensation or hire. This is the reason we have commercial pilot certificates.

 

[msmspilot]

If you carry property for the sole purpose of carring property, you are in violation of 61.113It doesn't matter if the co-worker is neccessary or not. The FAA doesn't care that you require two assistants to do your job. If you're getting re-imbursed for the flight, or otherwise compensated, you can not carry passengers.Taking your tools is ok, taking someone elses tools is not. Again, it doesn't matter why you're going, or who is required. If you are being reimbursed or otherwise compensated, you may not carry passengers.If it is your equipment, it's ok. If you are transporting someone elses equipment, it's not. You're a cargo pilot at that point.Within reason. Does the pen belong to you? Are you delivering the pen?

It ultimately boils down to this.

The FAA does not want private pilots acting as PIC while transporting goods or passengers, and doing so for compensation or hire. This is the reason we have commercial pilot certificates.

You say the pen is "within reason." It's my employers pen. I have to have it to do my job. I'm not going to leave it at the jobsite (intentionally anyway). Can I carry it? You seem to say no.

I have never once talked about, in any of my posts, transporting equipment to the jobsite to leave there.

Let's give a whatif. I'm part of a survey crew. My employer provides the survey equipment, and I have two team members. You seem to believe that I cannot carry the team members or the survey equipment. If that's the case, how could the provision to allow a private pilot fly for stuff incidental to business possibly ever be used? If you're having to travel for your job, how could you possibly not need to carry something with you that's for your employer?

Also, if that's the case, why the language to allow a private pilot to fly for compensation or hire for purposes incidental to business? A coworker who is part of my regular team is certainly incidental to my business, as is the equipment I usually use to do my job.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

If that's the case, how could the provision to allow a private pilot fly for stuff incidental to business possibly ever be used? If you're having to travel for your job, how could you possibly not need to carry something with you that's for your employer?

Also, if that's the case, why the language to allow a private pilot to fly for compensation or hire for purposes incidental to business? A coworker who is part of my regular team is certainly incidental to my business, as is the equipment I usually use to do my job.

I have yet to find an example of a PPL flying for compensation incidental to the business that someone hasn't found fault with.

Which begs the question, why did Cessna and Piper bother building aircraft with more than one seat?

 

[msmspilot]

I have yet to find an example of a PPL flying for compensation incidental to the business that someone hasn't found fault with.

Which begs the question, why did Cessna and Piper bother building aircraft with more than one seat?

Which begs the question, "why the wording in the regulations allowing for it?"
:whatever:

The FAA has spoken on this one. At least for now. I see it like the infamous known icing interpretation, and I hope this one is overturned just as quickly.

 

[bLizZuE]

You say the pen is "within reason." It's my employers pen. I have to have it to do my job. I'm not going to leave it at the jobsite (intentionally anyway). Can I carry it? You seem to say no.

We seem to have a lack of effective communication.
I said that 'Within reason' you may carry property that is your own that is incidental. What you may not do is take a co-workers property for delivery, or property the company has asked you to transport.

I have never once talked about, in any of my posts, transporting equipment to the jobsite to leave there.

To even discuss the carriage of property implies that you are delivering it. There is no point just carrying around stuff all day.

Let's give a whatif. I'm part of a survey crew. My employer provides the survey equipment, and I have two team members. You seem to believe that I cannot carry the team members or the survey equipment. If that's the case, how could the provision to allow a private pilot fly for stuff incidental to business possibly ever be used? If you're having to travel for your job, how could you possibly not need to carry something with you that's for your employer?

Not quite. If you have equipment needed for your personal use, I believe it to be perfectly justifiable in the 'incidental' phrase. However, if you start carrying co-workers you are now carrying passengers.

Also, if that's the case, why the language to allow a private pilot to fly for compensation or hire for purposes incidental to business? A coworker who is part of my regular team is certainly incidental to my business, as is the equipment I usually use to do my job.

The terms of being 'incidental' refer to the flight, not the contents of the flight. That means the FAA does not consider items carried or persons carried in the definition of 'incidental'. They are only defined as property and passengers.

 

[msmspilot]

We seem to have a lack of effective communication.

Not quite. If you have equipment needed for your personal use, I believe it to be perfectly justifiable in the 'incidental' phrase. However, if you start carrying co-workers you are now carrying passengers.


The terms of being 'incidental' refer to the flight, not the contents of the flight. That means the FAA does not consider items carried or persons carried in the definition of 'incidental'. They are only defined as property and passengers.

I agree that we're lacking effective communication.

If the equipment is for your "personal use" to do your job, but it belongs to your employer, is it still incidental? I'm not delivering equipment that I'll need back at the main office tomorrow.

If you CAN carry that equipment, how are you not carrying "property for compensation or hire"?

If you CAN carry that equipment, and it's not for compensation or hire (because you didn't get paid to carry that equipment, you had to carry that equipment to get the job done and it was incidental), then how can you make a blanket "you can't carry passengers even if they are incidental? You know, since the passenger and property restrictions are in the same sentence?

On your last paragraph, you're correct that the flight has to be incidental to business. But the passenger/property restriction is "you can't have the purpose of the flight be to carry passengers or property" not "you can't carry passengers or property at all."

What if I'm going on business, but I carry my wife? I am carrying a passenger but it's clearly not for compensation or hire. But I'm still getting reimbursed for the flight. You going to violate that??

 

[bLizZuE]

I agree that we're lacking effective communication.

If the equipment is for your "personal use" to do your job, but it belongs to your employer, is it still incidental? I'm not delivering equipment that I'll need back at the main office tomorrow.

If you CAN carry that equipment, how are you not carrying "property for compensation or hire"?

I interpret this(same for passengers) as; you are not allowed to transport materials other than what you would consider personal. Tools, equipment, whatever; if it's for your personal use, regardless of who owns it, no problem.

If you CAN carry that equipment, and it's not for compensation or hire (because you didn't get paid to carry that equipment, you had to carry that equipment to get the job done and it was incidental), then how can you make a blanket "you can't carry passengers even if they are incidental? You know, since the passenger and property restrictions are in the same sentence?

I have a hard time believing the FAA would be OK with a private pilot carrying a passenger while being paid for that flight. That is why I have this interpretation of the reg.

On your last paragraph, you're correct that the flight has to be incidental to business. But the passenger/property restriction is "you can't have the purpose of the flight be to carry passengers or property" not "you can't carry passengers or property at all."

I am unsure. I believe it to clarify that I am allowed to operate the aircraft for compensation or hire provided I do not carry passengers or property.

What if I'm going on business, but I carry my wife? I am carrying a passenger but it's clearly not for compensation or hire. But I'm still getting reimbursed for the flight. You going to violate that??

In this scenario, you're getting paid to fly somewhere. You're not getting paid to fly your wife, however you're still carrying passengers for compensation. No go.

I have asked a few of our assistant chiefs and they are mixed on the idea as well. I love that about this industry, I ask people with 20+ years of experience and they don't even know. Scary that I've only been a CFI for 3 years and I'm more informed...

I will relent it is unclear, however this has been my interpretation of the regulation for some time. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Learning is an active process...

 

[msmspilot]

I interpret this(same for passengers) as; you are not allowed to transport materials other than what you would consider personal. Tools, equipment, whatever; if it's for your personal use, regardless of who owns it, no problem.

I have a hard time believing the FAA would be OK with a private pilot carrying a passenger while being paid for that flight. That is why I have this interpretation of the reg.

I am unsure. I believe it to clarify that I am allowed to operate the aircraft for compensation or hire provided I do not carry passengers or property.

Ok, in the first paragraph, you say you can carry tools or equipment for your personal use. Do you mean that you can carry tools that your employer provides to do your job? If it's personal use, does that mean you don't use it except for you and not your job?

In the last paragraph, you say the opposite. You say "provided I do not carry passengers or property." Which do you mean? You've said both sides in these two statements.

In this scenario, you're getting paid to fly somewhere. You're not getting paid to fly your wife, however you're still carrying passengers for compensation. No go.

But I'm not getting compensated TO CARRY THE PASSENGER. That's what the reg says.

I have asked a few of our assistant chiefs and they are mixed on the idea as well. I love that about this industry, I ask people with 20+ years of experience and they don't even know. Scary that I've only been a CFI for 3 years and I'm more informed...

I will relent it is unclear, however this has been my interpretation of the regulation for some time. Does that make it right? Absolutely not. Learning is an active process...

I would be careful to say you're "more informed" unless you can provide where you've done research they haven't

It is unclear. I think it is ludicrous to have the language in the reg to allow a private pilot to operate an aircraft for compensation and then strip out any circumstance where it's actually useful.