A question...

[imatworkallday]

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.

I am interpreting this as yes he can. He is flying the plane to go to a worksite and is not flying the plane for financial gain.

Is there something that I am missing? Does the fact that its a company owned plane change anything?:dunno:

 

[PA44-LUV]

The only part I'd be concerned about is that "the aircraft does not carry passengers ... for compensation or hire."

The FAA in the past has considered flight time as a form of compensation.

If they were going alone, no problem, just not sure about the carrying other company personnel part.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

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.

I am interpreting this as yes he can. He is flying the plane to go to a worksite and is not flying the plane for financial gain.

I know plenty of pilots that do. (They own a company that owns a plane, and they fly employees and customers around). As long as the purpose of the use of the plane is furtherance of a business that is not transporting people or goods for hire, you should be okay.

The primary business here is Structural Engineering, not operating an airplane. And the passengers aren't paying for the flight (the company is). I'd still talk to a lawyer though, since the ownership structure of the aircraft can change things.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The FAA in the past has considered flight time as a form of compensation.

If they were going alone, no problem, just not sure about the carrying other company personnel part.

The FARs specifically allow compensation or hire for a PPL in the case of furtherance of an non-aviation related business. The PPL/Structural Engineer is being paid for being a Structural Engineer, not for being a pilot.

 

[PA44-LUV]

Good to know. This language has always got me hung up a little.

 

[imatworkallday]

I know plenty of pilots that do. (They own a company that owns a plane, and they fly employees and customers around). As long as the purpose of the use of the plane is furtherance of a business that is not transporting people or goods for hire, you should be okay.

The primary business here is Structural Engineering, not operating an airplane. And the passengers aren't paying for the flight (the company is). I'd still talk to a lawyer though, since the ownership structure of the aircraft can change things.

I completely agree with the owner of the company flying the company aircraft. In this case though it is an employee (a friend of mine) who would be flying the aircraft.

Would the company covering operating expenses make any drastic changes to the interpretation? IE would flying other company personnel on his trips change anything?

 

[chensley]

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.

I am interpreting this as yes he can. He is flying the plane to go to a worksite and is not flying the plane for financial gain.

Is there something that I am missing? Does the fact that its a company owned plane change anything?:dunno:

Getting a private pilot ticket is about the same as getting your ticket to drive a car. As long as your not "getting anything out of it" (money, services, crap like that) your good to go.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Would the company covering operating expenses make any drastic changes to the interpretation? IE would flying other company personnel on his trips change anything?

Unfortunately yes. There's a FAA Chief Counsel interpretation from last March. Once there are other employees in the airplane, you end up in the "shared cost" situation, not the "compensation for incidental flight" exception. A good number of people were surprised and dismayed by the opinion and I understand there is some attempt underway to get it changed

It's here (second half of the letter - the first deals with auctioned flights):
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...erpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

 

[imatworkallday]

Unfortunately yes. There's a FAA Chief Counsel interpretation from last March. Once there are other employees in the airplane, you end up in the "shared cost" situation, not the "compensation for incidental flight" exception. A good number of people were surprised and dismayed by the opinion and I understand there is some attempt underway to get it changed

It's here (second half of the letter - the first deals with auctioned flights):
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...erpretations/data/interps/2009/Mangiamele.pdf

Wow! This I think clears it up. Thanks!

Also, thanks to everyone who put their input into this question. It is greatly appreciated! JC forums rock! :rawk:

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Unfortunately yes. There's a FAA Chief Counsel interpretation from last March. Once there are other employees in the airplane, you end up in the "shared cost" situation, not the "compensation for incidental flight" exception.

Wow, I know a lot of people that are breaking the rules under this interpretation, many of whom are attorneys.

Even if the pilot was a commercially certificated pilot, he would still be receiving compensation in the form of flight time (notwithstanding his pay as an employee). Wouldn't this effectively mean all business use of a company-owned aircraft would require a commercial operator's certificate?

The only thing I see is that it is a personally owned aircraft, not owned by the company. If the company owned the aircraft, would that change anything? (I would think so, as there is now no reimbursement to seek). This makes about as much sense as requiring employee carpool drivers to have hackney licenses.


So the legal way around this is what? Charge your employees for the cost of the flight? Hardly makes sense since their pay is coming from the company in the first place. I guess just give them a travel allowance to cover the pro-rata share (or a raise)?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Wow, I know a lot of people that are breaking the rules under this interpretation, many of whom are attorneys.

Even if the pilot was a commercially certificated pilot, he would still be receiving compensation in the form of flight time (notwithstanding his pay as an employee). Wouldn't this effectively mean all business use of a company-owned aircraft would require a commercial operator's certificate?

The only thing I see is that it is a personally owned aircraft, not owned by the company. If the company owned the aircraft, would that change anything? (I would think so, as there is now no reimbursement to seek). This makes about as much sense as requiring employee carpool drivers to have hackney licenses.


So the legal way around this is what? Charge your employees for the cost of the flight? Hardly makes sense since their pay is coming from the company in the first place. I guess just give them a travel allowance to cover the pro-rata share (or a raise)?

Beats the heck out of me. I don't really think I understand the thought process behind the opinion enough to even guess at the answer to questions like yours.

Best I can guess is that once you have a company paying a pilot for group flights, it starts to smell like a corporate flight department even though the pilot is going to the meeting also. If that's it, then the company owning the plane might make it worse.

 

[Chief Captain]

Even if the pilot was a commercially certificated pilot, he would still be receiving compensation in the form of flight time (notwithstanding his pay as an employee).

Say again please? How is "getting" to fly the airplane compensation? Last time I checked, flying was the service we provide, and money is the compensation for said service. Or have the rules changed?

 

[PA44-LUV]

Say again please? How is "getting" to fly the airplane compensation? Last time I checked, flying was the service we provide, and money is the compensation for said service. Or have the rules changed?

I think its considered compensation because he's logging hours at no cost versus paying the pro-rata share.

 

[Xcaliber]

Say again please? How is "getting" to fly the airplane compensation? Last time I checked, flying was the service we provide, and money is the compensation for said service. Or have the rules changed?

The rules havn't changed, and neither has the interpretation (on that point, anyways). Flight time has long been considered compensation, whether it's logged or not.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

The rules havn't changed, and neither has the interpretation (on that point, anyways). Flight time has long been considered compensation, whether it's logged or not.

Here's a hypothetical one:

Suppose I start a Law Firm, DrunkenBeagle & DrunkerBeagle, LP
Suppose our firm buys a plane. Let's say both Beagle's are commercial pilots.

If we have a hearing out of town, is there any legal way under that interpretation we can both travel in the same aircraft? Being Lawyers, it is safe to assume both Beagle's are billing for travel time (compensation) and logging flight time (compensation) and billing a customer for all expenses (hire). 91.501 explicitly permits all of this.

My opinion would be that this is "Private Carriage for Hire," or Part 91.501 b(4) and (5). Actually, section (7) would seem to apply even if the company was not the operator/owner of the aircraft.

By the way, the employees cannot pay a pro-rata share of the flight. To get the 91.501 exemption, passengers can't be charged anything.

It would seem silly to even have language related to passengers in 91.501, since this interpretation would make it all moot.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Say again please? How is "getting" to fly the airplane compensation? Last time I checked, flying was the service we provide, and money is the compensation for said service. Or have the rules changed?

Nothing has changed. Unfortunately, there are a number of Chief Counsel opinions in which loggable flight time is considered to be compensation. Also, I haven't looked for it, but if "flight time" and "the expectation of future business" (yep, the FAA's done that one also) can be considered compensation, getting to fly an airplane without having to pay those rental fees seems an even stronger case.

I'm not justifying it. Just explaining it.

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

Here's a hypothetical one:

Suppose I start a Law Firm, DrunkenBeagle & DrunkerBeagle, LP
Suppose our firm buys a plane. Let's say both Beagle's are commercial pilots.

If we have a hearing out of town, is there any legal way under that interpretation we can both travel in the same aircraft? Being Lawyers, it is safe to assume both Beagle's are billing for travel time (compensation) and logging flight time (compensation) and billing a customer for all expenses (hire). 91.501 explicitly permits all of this.

Yeah, but 91.501 only applies to subpart F aircraft - large, turbine and fractionals.

If anything, the specific permission for certain types of aircraft or arrangement is an pretty good argument that it's not allowed in other situations.

 

[drunkenbeagle]

Yeah, but 91.501 only applies to subpart F aircraft - large, turbine and fractionals.

If anything, the specific permission for certain types of aircraft or arrangement is an pretty good argument that it's not allowed in other situations.

So my law firm owns a King Air. It's legal in the new King Air, but not the old one we have?

 

[MidlifeFlyer]

So my law firm owns a King Air. It's legal in the new King Air, but not the old one we have?

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

 

[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

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....